California Lets Sex Offenders Run For Office

July 9, 2026

California lawmakers just left a door open for registered sex offenders, including some convicted of child sex crimes, to run for public office, and they did it in the name of protecting voters’ rights.

Story Snapshot

Registered sex offenders, even those with crimes against children, can still legally run for and hold office in California after a key bill stalled.
The Senate Elections Committee blocked Assembly Bill 2753 when its author refused to narrow the ban to the highest-risk Tier 3 offenders.
Senator Scott Wiener cast the only “no” vote, saying a lifetime ban on all registrants was too broad and could violate democratic and constitutional principles.
Lawmakers advanced a narrower bill focused on specific felony sexual assault and human trafficking, leaving major loopholes for other serious child sex crimes.

How One Hearing Kept Sex Offenders Eligible for Office

On June 30, 2026, the California Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee took up Assembly Bill 2753, a measure that would have barred anyone who has ever been required to register as a sex offender from running for or holding state or local office. The bill came after Fresno resident Rene Campos, a registered sex offender, announced a run for city council, shocking many local voters and pushing Assemblywoman Esmeralda Soria to act. In the Assembly, lawmakers backed her plan 60–0, showing strong support for a full ban.

Everything changed in the Senate committee. California’s registry uses three tiers, with Tier 1 typically lasting 10 years, Tier 2 about 20, and Tier 3 for life. Tier 1 can include crimes like indecent exposure, misdemeanor child pornography, and sexual battery, while Tier 3 covers felony child pornography, rape, and pimping or pandering of a minor. Committee chair Senator Scott Wiener argued that a lifetime ban on all three tiers swept too broadly and would forever block some people with lower-level or old offenses from running, no matter what voters think.

The Clash: Broad Safety Ban vs. Narrow Rights Rule

During the hearing, Senator Wiener said he would only support AB 2753 if it were changed to apply only to Tier 3 registrants, the group seen as most serious and highest risk. He pointed to concerns in the committee’s own analysis, including “Romeo and Juliet” situations where a 19-year-old and 17-year-old share explicit images and the older teen ends up on the registry, then would be banned from office for life. He also raised fears that old cases involving lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) people, convicted under laws that no longer exist, could still trigger a permanent ban.

Assemblywoman Soria rejected the Tier 3-only amendment, saying it would break a promise she made to her community after the Campos case. She argued that people who commit “some of the most horrific crimes against children, against other people” should not be able to run for public office at all and that applying the bill only to Tier 3 would leave serious offenders in Tiers 1 and 2 still eligible. Because she refused to narrow the bill, Wiener voted “no,” two senators voted “yes,” and two abstained, creating a 2–1–2 split that stopped AB 2753 in its tracks.

What Current Law Allows — And Why It Worries Voters

With AB 2753 stalled, California remains one of the states where registered sex offenders, including people convicted of sex crimes against children, can still run for and hold office if they meet other basic requirements like age and residency. Existing law already bars candidates who committed public corruption crimes such as bribery or embezzling public money, but it does not include sex offenses in that list. This gap means someone convicted years ago of certain child sex crimes could legally seek a seat on a school board, city council, or even the Legislature.

The committee did move forward a different bill, AB 2691, which adds specified felony sexual assault and human trafficking crimes to the existing list of felonies that make a person ineligible for office. But amendments to another measure, AB 2961, allow people convicted of some felony child sex crimes, including rape and sodomy, to still run for offices that oversee children. Child safety advocates argue this leaves a dangerous loophole, while civil rights attorneys and some lawmakers say bans must be tightly focused to survive constitutional tests and respect voters’ right to choose their leaders.

Deeper Fears: Elites, Loopholes, and Distrust in the System

Many Californians on both the left and right see this fight as another sign that the political system protects insiders more than everyday people. Parents and victims’ groups ask how someone on the sex offender registry can be trusted to write laws or oversee schools, especially when past leaders were quick to punish small crimes but slow to defend children. At the same time, skeptics of broad bans worry that lawmakers use emotional cases to pass sweeping rules that look tough but may break constitutional limits and still leave loopholes.

California Rejects Ban on Sex Offenders Running for Office After Fresno Candidate’s BidCopy:In early 2026, Fresno resident Rene Campos, a registered sex offender convicted of possessing child sex abuse material, announced his run for City Council. Though he failed to qualify for…

— Iníon Dé (@inion_De_1893) July 3, 2026

Across the country, sex offender laws have often grown fast after shocking crimes, only to face court challenges or later rollbacks when judges find they go too far or do little to improve safety. In California, a past attempt to bar sex offenders from school boards was vetoed over constitutional concerns, and housing limits on registrants have been narrowed after experts warned they could increase homelessness and even reoffending. The stalled AB 2753 now sits at the center of this larger struggle: how to protect children and community trust without giving the political class unchecked power to decide who voters are allowed to elect.