By The San Diego News Desk
San Diego County Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer has long been criticized for her lenient stance on crime, a record that has come under increasing scrutiny as California grapples with a rise in smash-and-grab robberies, homelessness, and violent crime. Despite widespread support from both sides of the aisle for Prop 36, a measure that would put an end to rampant smash-and-grab robberies across the state, Lawson-Remer has refused to support the initiative. Prop 36, backed by a broad bipartisan coalition and more than a million signatures from voters across California, aims to restore accountability by addressing the surge in theft crimes that has paralyzed businesses and put community safety at risk.
Prop 36’s momentum has been driven by California residents’ frustration with the rise of crime. The initiative is not just about increased penalties but also about giving judges the ability to offer treatment programs for those struggling with addiction or mental health issues, something that Lawson-Remer claims to support. Yet, her refusal to back this widely supported measure leaves many questioning whether she truly prioritizes public safety.
This is not the first time Lawson-Remer has been at odds with common-sense criminal justice reforms. In 2021, she openly advocated for the privacy rights of violent sexual predators going so far as to oppose California Senate Bill 248, which required hearings for sexually violent predators to be open to the public. SB248 was designed to ensure transparency in the judicial process and give communities the ability to understand who was being considered for release back into their neighborhoods. Lawson-Remer called the bill “redundant” and argued for “flexibility” to protect the privacy of offenders in treatment options, a stance that put her squarely at odds with community members and victims’ rights advocates.
Her opposition to SB 248 was met with outrage from concerned parents and public safety advocates. Many pointed out that while protecting the privacy of violent sexual predators, Lawson-Remer failed to consider the safety and well-being of the communities where these predators could return. Critics argue that her position reflects a dangerous pattern—prioritizing the rights of criminals over the safety and security of law-abiding citizens.
In addition to her stance on sexual predators, Lawson-Remer’s record includes other decisions that raised eyebrows among voters concerned with public safety. In January 2021, she voted to support a controversial needle exchange program aimed at reducing health risks for intravenous drug users. According to The San Diego Union-Tribune on January 27, 2021, “County supervisors on Tuesday agreed to create a needle exchange program as part of a strategy to reduce health risks for intravenous drug users.” While proponents argue that such programs reduce the spread of diseases like HIV, critics contend that these programs enable drug addiction and undermine efforts to reduce drug use and crime. One supervisor who voted against the program pointed out, “Giving out needles still has the appearance of promoting drug abuse,” stating he would rather see more efforts toward drug abuse prevention.
The need for effective drug addiction treatment is dire, especially in light of the alarming statistics showing 6,928 emergency room visits for drug overdoses in San Diego County in 2021. Yet, the county only has 70 drug addiction beds under contract, none of which are located within the city of San Diego. This glaring lack of resources underscores the inadequacy of Lawson-Remer’s approach to addressing the drug crisis.
With her track record, it’s no wonder that Lawson-Remer’s failure to support Prop 36 is seen as more of the same. Her history of leniency and prioritizing offenders’ privacy over public safety is out of step with the needs of San Diego County residents, who are growing increasingly concerned about rising crime rates and the lack of accountability for repeat offenders.
As the election season heats up, voters will be looking closely at Lawson-Remer’s record, and her consistent opposition to measures that would hold criminals accountable may well be a deciding factor. These questions remain: Is Lawson-Remer truly interested in protecting her constituents, or is she more concerned with defending the rights of those who harm them?
