The Brief

Republican state Sen. Brian Jones has been trying to block sex offenders from being released from prison through California’s elderly parole program for several years. Last week, for the first time, his bill to do so made it out of its first committee.

It was just one of many votes Senate Bill 286 will have to survive in a long road ahead in the Capitol, but it caught Jones’ attention. In a Legislature dominated by Democrats who often shelve Republican tough-on-crime proposals, the approval from the Senate Public Safety Committee was unanimous.

“I don’t think it would have passed a committee last year,” said Jones, the Senate minority leader.

California’s Democratic legislators — who for years have been passing progressive measures designed to reduce sentences and lessen mass incarceration by emphasizing more rehabilitative solutions to crime — were dealt a blow last fall when an overwhelming majority of voters approved Proposition 36.

The measure backed by business owners, police and Republicans, increased sentences for some drug and theft crimes, partially undoing more lenient measures that voters approved just 10 years ago. Though many Democrats opposed the measure, they’re now tasked with providing funding to carry it out.

Jones, of San Diego, said he’s seeing Democrats inching toward stricter incarceration measures as a result. He said he saw a window to bring back the legislation this year.

“The smart Democrats are getting it,” he said. “The voters spoke overwhelmingly.”

The Public Safety Committee also gave unanimous approval this month for another bill Jones authored, SB 379, that would add regulatory guardrails before the Department of State Hospitals releases sexually violent predators. It’s his fourth year in a row pushing that measure; the proposal passed the Senate and died in the Assembly last year, after failing to clear a single committee both years before that. SB 432, authored by a different Republican senator to increase penalties for selling or giving fentanyl to minors, also got unanimous approval in the committee this month.

Freshman Sen. Jesse Arreguín, an Oakland Democrat who chairs the committee, said his fellow Democrats don’t intend to return to an era of overcrowded prisons or harsh penalties for lower-level crimes. But he acknowledged they’re also shifting their thinking in response to their voters, and called that approach “pragmatic.”

“That was the direction I was given as chair of the Public Safety Committee, was that we need to provide more balance in terms of how we look at criminal justice policy,” he said, referring to the Democratic caucus. “Just focusing specifically on restorative justice and prevention, and not focusing on accountability (for offenders), that's not where the voters are now.”

Criminal justice reforms still advancing

So far, the shift hasn’t been enough to worry Tinisch Hollins, executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice, a group that advocates for reduced imprisonment and pushed for the 2014 sentencing changes that voters approved.

She pointed to bills her organization has sponsored that are also advancing through the Legislature, including legislation to expand the state’s efforts to clear criminal records to give past offenders second chances, and to require that the California Department of Corrections apply more good behavior credits to reduce prisoners’ time served. With the state tight on cash, she said she doesn’t believe lawmakers will be eager to significantly increase imprisonment and sees a “consensus that we shouldn’t go back that way.”

“Even Prop. 36 wasn't a referendum on reform,” Hollins said. “There's still plenty of support for different approaches to public safety that really address the root cause and prevent crime from happening in the first place.”

Any stricter measures the Legislature approves this year will ultimately be narrow, with Republicans pointing to extreme examples to push their case.

State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, a San Diego Republican, during the state Senate Appropriations Committee session in Sacramento on Sept. 1, 2023.

(

Rahul Lal

/

CalMatters

)

Jones’ elderly parole bill targets a program the Corrections Department first created in 2014, in response to a court order to reduce prison crowding, that allows prisoners who are older than 60 and have served at least 25 years of their sentences to petition for release.

He tried in 2019 to restrict those convicted of sex offenses from being eligible; the bill never got a hearing. In 2020, lawmakers quietly lowered the eligibility for some prisoners to age 50, if they’ve served at least 20 years, though many have not been approved for release. The following year, Jones proposed a bill undoing that change for sex offenders, which went nowhere.

Between January 2021 and June 2024, the Board of Parole Hearings released 1,762 people through the elderly parole program, corrections spokesperson Emily Humpal wrote in an email. Department data analyzed by CalMatters show that while more people have been released under the elder program since 2021, the rates at which the board grants parole fluctuate between 14% and 20% each year, hovering just above the board’s overall parole-granting rate. The department would not immediately provide a breakdown of their convictions, nor of how many of those released were between the ages of 50 and 60.

Now, 12,303 people currently imprisoned – nearly 14% of the prison population – are eligible for either form of elderly parole, Humpal said.

Jones’ bill would bar those convicted of sexual felonies such as rape and child sexual abuse from parole eligibility at age 50. It would not affect their eligibility upon turning 60, or the parole eligibility date in their original sentences.

He also proposed blocking the earlier eligibility from people convicted of murder, but Arreguín’s committee removed that provision with Jones’ agreement before voting to advance the bill.

Proponents of the measure, including San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan, say victims shouldn’t be forced to relive the trauma of parole hearings and the prospect of their abusers’ release before the end of their original sentences.

They point to Mary Johnson, who identified herself as the childhood victim of rape and sexual abuse by her uncle. The abuser, Cody Klemp, was originally sentenced in the 1990s to 170 years. In 2023, under the elderly parole program, the Board of Parole Hearings recommended his release — then rescinded the decision last year. His next hearing is scheduled for 2029.

“Suddenly, I was no longer a 49-year-old woman, but I was a 13-year-old trapped and powerless and fighting again,” Johnson said in a press conference. “No victim’s family should have to fight over and over again to ensure that a dangerous predator serves the sentence that they were given.”

Closing the doors on the rehabilitated?

A group of criminal justice reform and civil rights advocates including the American Civil Liberties Union opposes the legislation, arguing it would close the door on those who have been rehabilitated in prison and pose less of a public safety risk. Studies have found the chances of re-offense decrease as a defendant ages.

Gary Harrell, who was given a life sentence for his participation in a murder, testified that despite becoming eligible for parole in 1984, he wasn’t released until about 40 years later, after he had gone before the parole board about 20 times. He said in the last two decades of his incarceration, he turned his life around, and now works a day job while in his spare time giving homeless Sacramento residents food and hygiene products.

“I have taken so much from others and now it’s time to give back and do my part to make the world a better place,” he said. “I hope you can see that the people who will be impacted by this bill are people like me who have changed and want to give back.”

Arreguín said he proposed removing Jones’ exclusion of people convicted of murder to focus the bill on sex offenses.

That tactic has yielded bipartisan backing in the last legislative session.

In 2023, Republican Sen. Shannon Grove of Bakersfield pushed a bill to increase penalties for child sex trafficking. Democrats in the Assembly Public Safety Committee resisted but, after a public outcry, Gov. Gavin Newsom stepped in with rare public comments in support of the legislation, which ultimately won more Democratic support and his signature.

Last year Grove’s bill to increase penalties for soliciting a minor for prostitution — targeting the buyers of sex — also prevailed. Senate Democrats carved out exclusions for 16- and 17-year-olds who are allegedly solicited, out of concern it would inadvertently rope in older teenagers who aren’t actually involved in or victims of trafficking. (The legal age of consent is 18.) This year, Grove is turning heads with a bill, Assembly Bill 379, co-authored with an Assembly Democrat, to undo those exclusions and apply the changes to all minors.

Jones acknowledged the tactic of focusing on sexual offenses is an incremental step toward tightening criminal sentences overall.

“We’re smart enough to know how far we can go,” he said.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.