By Tim Redmond
Only a small handful of Democrats voted against the weak prison-reform bill that narrowly passed the state Assembly Aug. 31. Among those joining the entire GOP caucus: Fiona Ma of San Francisco.
Ma’s always been a bit more conservative than her San Francisco colleagues, but this one is over the top: The bill was already watered down to be so mild that it won’t even come close to making the cuts needed to balance the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation budget. Proposals calling for the early release of old and sick inmates (people very unlikely to re-offend) were stripped from the bill. Any reasonable approach to the prison crisis would include the early release of tens of thousands of inmates who are serving overly lengthy sentences for nonviolent crimes; all of these inmates will be released soon anyway, and the notion that allowing a drug offender to serve three and a half years instead of four will somehow impact public safety is nuts. But that wasn’t even on the table; the final bill was designed not to scare away moderate Democrats.
Nevertheless, Ma voted no.
I couldn’t reach her on the phone and she didn’t respond directly to my email, which is unusual. But I did get a statement from her press spokesperson, Nick Hardeman, which reads as follows:
“While reducing costs is important to fix our budget crisis, we have to be responsible when it comes to public safety. If effective services are not in place as inmates re-enter society these cost savings will be pointless. As we make these reforms, our top priority should be to decrease recidivism rates and give individuals the appropriate tools to become productive members of society. We should not play budget politics with public safety and I would prefer a substantive, open process when making reforms of this magnitude.”
Wait: “We should not play budget politics with public safety?” That sounds like a press release from the police lobbies.