By Harriet Salarno, Founder of Crime Victims United
California politicians have become exceptionally good at telling survivors what they want to hear during campaign season. Believe women. Stand with survivors. Protect victims. These words dominate campaign speeches, legacy statements, political advertisements, and press conferences whenever politically convenient.
But what happens when the cameras turn off? Too often, the very leaders who publicly champion survivors are unwilling to confront the consequences of criminal justice policies that leave victims questioning their safety every day.
Consider the case of Lloyd Edwards. Edwards was convicted of violent sexual offenses and sentenced to three life terms plus 51 years. Yet after serving approximately two decades, he was released on parole in 2022, despite the objections of his victims. In September 2026, he was arrested again.
This case comes on the heels of other high-profile and deeply troubling decisions, including the October release of convicted serial rapist Andrew Luster, who was originally sentenced to 124 years in prison, and the attempted release of prolific sexual predator David Allen Funston, who was sentenced to multiple life terms. These cases involve different legal loopholes, but collectively raise questions about California's criminal justice laws, and the protections afforded to women and sexual assault survivors.
This is not an isolated policy debate. California has spent years reshaping its criminal justice system with little consideration for women’s safety. When high-ranking officials such as Governor Brown and then Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom sold Proposition 57 to California voters in 2016, they were explicitly promised that registered sex offenders would be excluded from its early parole provisions. Yet, that promise was quickly thrown out by the California Supreme Court. What voters were promised and what the law ultimately allowed became two very different things, and survivors are still paying the price to this day.
Each decision and promise deserves scrutiny, and as California politicians seek higher office and national influence, their records deserve that same scrutiny.
We are witnessing a familiar political transformation: elected officials seeking broader audiences, presenting themselves as pragmatic leaders while distancing themselves from controversial decisions made during their time in Sacramento. But political ambition should not come with the ability to rewrite history.
Consider State Senator Mike McGuire, who is now running for Congress. I recently participated in a press conference addressing the Lloyd Edwards case, and he responded that he had “no control over an independently appointed board.” While it is true that individual parole decisions are made by the Board of Parole Hearings, that response leaves out that California's Senate has a constitutional role in confirming these commissioners and a responsibility to exercise oversight. In 2025, McGuire chaired the Senate Rules Committee, which reviewed and advanced multiple appointments to that very board, including three commissioners whose nominations passed out of his committee.
Voters deserve political honesty on public safety decisions being made by California’s leaders. And for decades, California's state government has been dominated by one political party. Those who helped shape its criminal justice system should be prepared to defend that record, including the consequences for victims.
There is something profoundly troubling about a political culture that celebrates women during campaign season while survivors in California continue demanding basic transparency and accountability over decisions affecting their safety. We hear national declarations about standing with women. We see politicians weighing in on federal controversies and presenting themselves as champions of survivors. Yet here at home, survivors are still asking why violent offenders are being released, whether victims received adequate notification, and why legitimate concerns about safety are so often dismissed.
The answer cannot be another slogan. Nor should politicians be permitted to reinvent their records simply because the audience has changed from California voters and special interests to the nation. Survivors are not political props. We are mothers, daughters, sisters, neighbors, and members of communities who deserve to live without fear. Our experiences should inform the laws that govern us, not merely the slogans used to win elections.
This is why we support candidates such as Congressman James Gallagher, who has shown up consistently for survivors at every turn. Because we believe that California leaders who choose to ignore survivors should not take their politics nationwide. This sentiment needs to be stopped and reversed here in California before we give any of our political leaders with this attitude towards women a promotion to higher office.
Because believing women must mean more than saying the right words. It must mean protecting them when it matters most and at every point in the process - in our politics, in our policies, in our procedures, and beyond. And here at Crime Victims United, we will be here every step of the way to continue having these discussions.
