Staff Reports
California just had a moment that should make every parent and voter sit up. The Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee quietly killed a bill that would have stopped anyone on the state’s sex offender registry from running for elected office, while moving forward with a much narrower alternative that leaves worrying gaps. If you think this was an accident, think again — it was a choice, led by the committee chair.
Committee kills broad ban, advances a weaker fix
At the committee’s hearing this week, Assembly Bill 2753 — the Soria bill that would have barred anyone required to register as a sex offender from seeking local or state elective office — failed to advance after a roll call that showed only two yes votes and one no. The bill had already cleared the Assembly without a single no vote. At the same hearing the panel instead carved out and advanced AB 2691, a much narrower measure that targets certain felony sexual-assault and human‑trafficking convictions. In plain language: lawmakers rejected a blanket ban and opted for a limited list of disqualifying felonies.
Senator Scott Wiener’s fingerprints are all over this
Senator Scott Wiener, who chairs the committee and is running for the U.S. House, played a leading role in stopping the broad registry ban and pushing the narrower approach. Wiener argued the sex-offender registry is overbroad and includes a range of offenses, so a lifetime, registry‑based bar would sweep in people who are not “the most dangerous.” He voted against the broad ban and helped steer the compromise toward a tiered, felony‑only standard. Translation: he prefers legal nuance over a hard line — and voters get to decide whether that nuance feels comforting or infuriating.
Watered‑down language and troubling carve‑outs
The bill the committee advanced doesn’t just pick specific felonies — it explicitly excludes certain statutory subdivisions, creating carve‑outs that could let some offenders avoid disqualification. Supporters raised “Romeo and Juliet” concerns for younger couples, and that argument found traction. But the result is a patchwork rule that will leave many families scratching their heads about who is and isn’t allowed to run for school board, city council, or the state Legislature. If the goal was to close a loophole exposed by a Fresno incident, the new language looks more like a cat flap than a locked door.
What happens next — and why voters should care
Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria has promised to keep fighting, and AB 2753 was given reconsideration, so this story is not over. Expect the narrowed AB 2691 to face more amendments, legal review, and political sparring as it moves toward Appropriations and, possibly, a floor vote. Voters should watch this closely: eligibility rules for candidates are not just dry legalese. They determine whether convicted predators can seek positions that influence children and communities. Lawmakers can debate technicalities, but parents and taxpayers deserve a simple standard that protects kids — not political hair‑splitting that leaves safety to chance.
