In a striking example of political advertising’s power to mislead, a recent TV ad by a pro-Donald Trump super PAC portrays former California Attorney General Kamala Harris as lax in enforcing laws to keep sex offenders away from schools and parks. This ad, part of a $19 million campaign broadcast thousands of times across at least five swing states, distorts Harris’s actual record on the enforcement of California’s stringent sex offender residency law.
The ad stems from complex legal and constitutional challenges to the California law known as Jessica’s Law. Approved by roughly 70% of voters in 2006, Jessica’s Law prohibited registered sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of schools and parks. This legislation, formally named the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act, was invoked after the heart-wrenching case of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford, who was tragically kidnapped, raped, and murdered by a convicted sex offender in 2005.
Contrary to the claims in the ad, Harris defended the law robustly in court until a crucial ruling by the California Supreme Court in March 2015. The court found that the blanket application of residency restrictions in San Diego County unconstitutionally affected parolees, essentially leaving many homeless due to the severe limitation of available and affordable housing.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), advised by Harris’s office, altered its approach. Instead of blanket enforcement, the CDCR shifted to assess residency restrictions on a case-by-case basis. The revised policy focused particularly on high-risk sex offenders and offenses involving young children.
This nuanced enforcement was underscored in a 2015 memo from the CDCR, which stated that while the law’s residency restrictions would be broadly maintained for high-risk categories, other parolees would be evaluated based on individual circumstances and risks. The operational change aimed to tailor restrictions more closely to protect public safety without violating the constitutional rights of individuals.
Further adjustments occurred late in 2015, as an overview of the state’s sex offenders led to significant exceptions from the residency limitations. For instance, the new policy noted that, based on a careful review of criminal histories, the residency ban would continue to apply to about 1,400 offenders out of approximately 5,900. The changes were meant to ensure a direct connection between an offender’s residence and their potential for reoffense, thus focusing legal restrictions on those deemed most likely to harm the community.
Supporting these changes were broader legal trends across California, where courts often sided with parolees challenging the blanket application of residency restrictions, as noted by legal experts. The state’s pivot towards a more individualized approach was seen not as an abandonment of Jessica’s Law but as an alignment with constitutional requirements and pragmatic law enforcement.
Critics of the ad argue that its portrayal of Harris puts a misleading spin on a complex legal issue, one that involves balancing public safety with constitutional rights. By simplifying and sensationalizing Harris’s actions, the ad’s backers aim to paint her as putting criminals before community safety—a narrative that omits the broader legal context and the constraints imposed by the judiciary.
This report was created using automated tools and may not fully align with all facts or contexts. Readers are encouraged to seek additional sources for further clarification. Concerns about factual inaccuracies can be addressed by contacting contact@publiclawlibrary.org for article review, retraction, or correction.