Kamala Harris’ tenure as San Francisco District Attorney and California Attorney General is under intense scrutiny as she emerges as the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee for president. Experts warn that her policies and past decisions could pose significant challenges for her campaign.
“She’s someone who has talked out of both sides of her mouth, and she’s going to have trouble with both the left and the right because of the stances she’s taken over the years,” said Nicole Castronovo, a criminal defense lawyer based in Los Angeles, in an interview with Fox News Digital.
Critics have zeroed in on Harris’ support for the controversial 2014 California law, Proposition 47, which many blame for the surge in crime across the state. As the Attorney General at the time, Harris’ office was tasked with drafting the summary of Proposition 47 to inform voters. The law, known as the “Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act,” reduced penalties for various crimes, including downgrading the theft of items worth less than $950 from a felony to a misdemeanor.
Critics argue that this provision effectively gave thieves a free pass to loot retail stores with minimal consequences. “They changed sentencing to free criminals who should have been incarcerated and titled it with a misleading name,” Castronovo remarked. “But it actually made communities less safe.”
Proposition 47 also reclassified other crimes that were previously felonies, such as forgery, fraud, drug use, and receiving stolen goods under $950, as misdemeanors. This has even alienated some of Harris’ liberal supporters. “People are over the crime,” Castronovo said. “It really does affect your daily life. We’re paying so much money to live in LA where crime is just out of control.”
In an op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle, then-Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley described Proposition 47 as a political “Trojan Horse” that would lead to increased lawlessness.
Harris has also faced backlash for her endorsement of Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón, known for his controversial policies. “As D.A. of L.A. County, I know George Gascón will work every day to keep our communities safe and demand real accountability from our justice system and real justice for every Angeleno,” Harris told the Los Angeles Times in February 2020. However, Gascón’s tenure has been marked by criticism and several failed recall campaigns, with opponents accusing his office of fostering disorder.
Before becoming California’s Attorney General in 2011, Harris served as San Francisco’s District Attorney from 2004 to 2011. During that time, she was known for her tough-on-crime approach. Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor turned defense attorney, noted that Harris was considered a moderate in those days. “I thought she was tough and fair,” he said. “This was well before any of these progressive initiatives. She’s now tried to distance herself from that a bit.”
Harris’ tenure as San Francisco DA saw her taking some controversial actions, including seeking to charge parents of chronically truant students and pushing for higher bail for defendants charged with gun offenses. She also prosecuted over 1,900 marijuana cases, drawing criticism from progressives for disproportionately affecting men and people of color. “She was attacked for being too extreme, putting people in prison for longer periods of time, disproportionately affecting men and people of color,” Rahmani said.
Despite her tough stance on many issues, Harris opposed the death penalty, which drew significant attention when she refused to seek the death penalty in a case involving the murder of a San Francisco police officer. This decision led to a rare public rebuke from then-Senator Dianne Feinstein. Yet, when she became Attorney General, Harris defended the death penalty, adding to the complexity of her record. “She’s going to have a lot of issues with her death penalty positions,” Castronovo noted.
As Harris potentially faces off against former President Donald Trump, known for his tough-on-crime stance, experts believe she may adjust her rhetoric. “Now she’s running in a general election against someone who is tough on crime, I would expect her to shift back to her less progressive, more conservative prosecution roots,” Rahmani said.
Harris’ record as a prosecutor is a double-edged sword. While her tough-on-crime past may appeal to some voters, it also opens her up to criticism from both sides of the political spectrum. As the campaign progresses, how she navigates her complex history will be crucial in determining her success as a presidential candidate.
