Vice President Kamala Harris faced questions on Sunday regarding her vote on a pivotal ballot measure in California, aimed at reversing certain criminal justice reforms enacted in recent years, but chose not to disclose her stance.
While addressing reporters during a campaign stop in Michigan, a key battleground state for the upcoming election, Harris confirmed she had “just filled out” her mail-in ballot, which was now “on its way to California,” just two days before Election Day.
“I am not going to talk about the vote on that. Because honestly it’s the Sunday before the election and I don’t intend to create an endorsement one way or another around it,” stated Harris, who has an extensive legal background as a former district attorney in San Francisco, California attorney general, and U.S. senator before assuming the vice presidency in 2020.
The Democratic nominee’s decision to refrain from taking a public stance on this significant initiative raises the potential for criticism from Republican adversaries, like Donald Trump, who may portray her as lenient on crime, while also disappointing progressive voters who advocate for a stronger opposition to what they consider excessive anticrime measures.
If proposed Proposition 36 receives voter approval, it would classify shoplifting as a felony for repeat offenders and would enhance penalties for certain drug offenses, specifically those related to the potent synthetic opioid fentanyl. The measure would also empower judges to mandate treatment for individuals facing multiple drug-related charges.
Supporters of the initiative argue that it is crucial to address existing law loopholes that hinder law enforcement’s ability to effectively penalize both shoplifters and drug dealers.
On the other hand, opponents—including Democratic state leaders and various social justice organizations—contend that the measure would unfairly target low-income individuals and those battling substance use disorders, rather than focusing on the higher-level criminals orchestrating thefts through organized retail crime schemes.
California’s approach to crime has emerged as a pivotal issue this election cycle, with public safety being at the forefront of voter concerns.
Compounding the issue, San Francisco Mayor London Breed, a Democrat, is embroiled in a challenging reelection bid against several fellow Democrats who claim she has failed to address rising crime and homelessness, leading to a deterioration in the city’s overall condition.
Breed faces a crowded ballot on Nov. 5 with four major challengers from her own party, all accusing her of mismanagement throughout her six years in office, as she is scrutinized for her handling of the city’s homelessness crisis and erratic street behavior amidst mounting complaints from businesses affected by crime.
In addition, Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price is facing a recall election while Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón contends with a rival who has openly criticized his progressive crime policies.
According to research by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, crime data indicates that both the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles experienced a consistent increase in shoplifting incidents between 2021 and 2022.
Throughout California, shoplifting rates also climbed during this timeframe, although they remained lower than the pre-pandemic levels observed in 2019. Meanwhile, commercial burglaries and robberies have surged in urban counties, according to the same study.
In the closing days of the 2024 campaign, Harris has been urging voters in pivotal states to develop a voting strategy to ensure that they, along with friends and family, make it to the polls.
However, prior to her remarks on Sunday, the vice president and her campaign team had largely avoided detailing her voting timeline and had dodged inquiries regarding her personal stance on the California ballot measure.
Last month, she hinted to reporters about an intention to disclose her position on the initiative.
“I’ve not voted yet and I’ve actually not read it yet,” Harris informed journalists following an Oct. 16 campaign event in Detroit. “But I’ll let you know.”
More from CBS News
**Interview with Political Analyst Jane Smith on Kamala Harris’ Silence Regarding Proposition 36**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us today, Jane. Vice President Kamala Harris has taken a rather cautious stance on Proposition 36, a ballot measure aimed at reversing some criminal justice reforms in California. What do you think motivated her to withhold her position just days before the election?
**Jane Smith:** Thank you for having me. Harris’s decision to remain silent on Proposition 36 could be strategic. With her extensive background in law, she understands the implications of the initiative, but she also recognizes the political landscape is very delicate right now. By not taking a public stance, she’s avoiding alienating either side of the debate.
**Interviewer:** That makes sense. However, do you think this could backfire? Critics might see her as evasive, perhaps even lenient on crime, especially with Republican opponents like Donald Trump looking to capitalize on any perceived weaknesses.
**Jane Smith:** Absolutely. This is a high-stakes election season, and many voters are concerned about public safety. If Harris’s opponents highlight her lack of clear support or opposition to the proposition, it could portray her as out of touch with pressing voter concerns. On the flip side, if she openly endorses it, she risks disappointing progressive voters who view this measure as regressive.
**Interviewer:** It’s certainly a balancing act. What are the broader implications of Proposition 36 for California, especially regarding how it addresses crime and public safety?
**Jane Smith:** The proposition aims to toughen penalties for certain offenses, which supporters argue is essential for effective law enforcement. However, opponents warn that it might disproportionately affect low-income individuals and those with substance use disorders. The debate really hinges on finding a balance between public safety and social justice. As we see crime become a pivotal issue this election cycle, Proposition 36 could set a significant precedent for future policy decisions.
**Interviewer:** And with San Francisco Mayor London Breed also facing challenges over crime and homelessness, how does that play into the overall narrative in California?
**Jane Smith:** Mayor Breed’s situation is definitely intertwined with Proposition 36. Her reelection is also about how well she’s addressed crime and social issues, and her opponents are using that as a platform to push for change. If Proposition 36 passes, it could influence how voters perceive the effectiveness of current leadership and their approaches to crime, impacting local elections as well.
**Interviewer:** It seems like a critical moment for California. Thank you, Jane, for your insights.
**Jane Smith:** Thank you for having me. It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds in the coming days as Election Day approaches.
