Donald J. Trump has recently targeted Vice President Kamala Harris, claiming that California’s shoplifting law, which permits thefts up to $950 without severe penalties, is an example of her flawed policies. The former president has used this argument to portray Harris as excessively liberal, aiming to undermine her appeal among moderate voters. Harris, who was California’s attorney general before becoming a senator in 2017, has been a focal point in Trump’s critique of the state’s criminal justice policies.
At a recent press event in New Jersey, Trump criticized the state’s legal framework, saying, “In California, you can steal from a store as long as it’s under $950. There are thieves using calculators to ensure they don’t exceed this limit because they know they won’t face serious charges. This is a policy that Kamala Harris supports.” He echoed this sentiment at a rally in North Carolina, targeting Proposition 47—a 2014 measure that reduced certain theft-related offenses from felonies to misdemeanors if the stolen value was below $950.
Proposition 47 was part of broader criminal justice reforms aimed at reducing the prison population and addressing crime rates, which had been declining in California. This initiative, passed overwhelmingly by voters, was designed to ease overcrowding in prisons and shift focus to more serious offenses. While Proposition 47 made it more difficult to prosecute petty thefts as felonies, it did not legalize theft; instead, it redefined the prosecution process for thefts below the $950 threshold.
Trump has sought to link Harris directly to Proposition 47, despite her neutral stance on the measure. As attorney general, she was responsible for summarizing ballot measures but did not publicly endorse Proposition 47. Critics argue that Trump’s characterization of the law misrepresents its intent and impact.
Jeff Reisig, district attorney for Yolo County, noted that while shoplifting under $950 is classified as a misdemeanor, the real issue is that overcrowded jails often prioritize more serious crimes. The law’s primary change was to adjust how prosecutors handle theft cases, not to absolve theft of legal consequences. Additionally, California’s $950 limit is relatively moderate compared to other states, with several allowing even higher thresholds before felony charges apply.
Amid rising shoplifting incidents in California, some retailers have responded by locking up goods and discouraging staff from confronting thieves to avoid safety risks. Recent statistics show a notable increase in thefts, prompting debates about Proposition 47’s effectiveness. In response, Proposition 36, a new initiative on the November ballot, aims to reinstate some harsher penalties for repeat offenders and certain drug possession cases.
Governor Gavin Newsom, while critical of Proposition 47’s impacts, opposes the new rollback measure. Instead, he has signed legislation aimed at addressing theft more effectively, including measures to aggregate theft values for felony charges and target organized crime.
Proposition 47 was part of a broader shift in California’s approach to criminal justice, responding to a 2011 Supreme Court ruling that mandated prison population reductions due to overcrowding. This reform has led to a significant decrease in the state’s prison population, prompting ongoing discussions about the balance between reform and public safety.