Staff Reports
Vice President Kamala Harris has pulled a classic political maneuver by refusing to reveal her voting stance on California’s Proposition 36, a measure that aims to crack down on repeat offenders when it comes to drug-related crimes and theft. While she was rallying supporters in Detroit, Harris evaded a direct answer like a seasoned politician, saying it was just too close to election day for her to make such declarations.
Proposition 36 seeks to transform the legal landscape for habitual shoplifters and drug traffickers, including those who deal in the infamous synthetic opioid, fentanyl. This initiative would upgrade the crime of shoplifting to a felony for repeat offenders and boost penalties for various drug charges. It would also empower judges to mandate rehabilitation for those with multiple drug offenses. It sounds like a solid plan to combat the crime wave sweeping many communities, but apparently, the Vice President is not ready to get on board.
Harris Refuses to Say How She Voted on One of the Most Important Measures on California's Ballot
https://t.co/i7TnE5P42F— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) November 4, 2024
Supporters are strident in their advocacy, arguing the initiative is a necessary step to close loopholes that allow serial shoplifters and drug dealers to sneak through the justice system without facing serious consequences. The supporters include law enforcement, who are waving the alarm about the current inability to effectively punish those who are making a mockery of the law. After all, sending the message that there are serious repercussions for crime could deter those thinking about engaging in illicit activities.
On the flip side, the opponents of Proposition 36 aren’t exactly thrilled either. Some liberal leaders and social justice advocates are crying foul, claiming the measure will unfairly target the poor and struggling with substance abuse rather than going after the real masterminds of these crimes. It seems that in their view, the ringleaders—those suave individuals sitting in their lavish offices hiring crowds to steal for financial gain—are somehow going to be exempt from the penalties imposed by this measure.
As the election approaches, Harris’s hesitation to disclose her stance is raising eyebrows. It lends itself to the theory that if she had roared her support for a tougher stance against crime, she would have jumped at the chance to share it. The silence speaks volumes and could very well indicate a lack of confidence in this push, especially as crime continues to plague cities across America. Maybe some attention to crime rates and the welfare of law-abiding citizens should override the woke ideals steering party narratives, but that’s a thought for another day.
