Quick Take
Whether a criminal record should matter to voters is playing out in the race for the Pajaro Valley Unified School District governing board, where candidate Curt Wilcox has a felony assault conviction and a history of run-ins with law enforcement. California law doesn't stand in his way — but many think it should factor into their decision.
A 2017 felony assault conviction would disqualify a Pajaro Valley Unified School District board candidate from running for office in states such as Illinois or Virginia, unless he had received a pardon or other action by the governor.
But here in California, the candidate, Curt Wilcox, is legally eligible to run for office because state law doesn’t prohibit him. He has decades of encounters with law enforcement in Santa Cruz, Shasta and Monterey counties, including a child endangerment misdemeanor and an arrest after leading Watsonville police on a chase where he crashed into multiple fire department cars in 2021.
California law requires only that someone be a registered voter within the district of the office they pursue and that they not have felony convictions of bribery, embezzlement of public funds, extortion, theft of public money, perjury, or conspiracy to commit these offenses.
Wilcox’s candidacy is raising questions among Santa Cruz County community members and elected officials, who say they don’t think he is qualified to run for the school board seat. Others, however, believe that formerly incarcerated people have served time for their crimes and voters should be the ones to decide who represents them.
The debate is surfacing as there is rising concern about numerous elected officials accused of sexual misconduct, like former U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, and current legislation that would add the most serious sex assault crimes to state law, which is awaiting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature.
Attorney Annie Wang, who works for legal services organization Root & Rebound, said she believes that informed voters should select their representatives, and that formerly incarcerated people have a constitutional right to serve in public office.
“I absolutely empathize with people who are concerned about the convictions, and obviously we want the best and safest candidates for our children,” she said. “It’s not for legislatures to put a restriction on who can run for office and restrict the pool. I think that actually sets more of a dangerous precedent.”
The new legislation, Assembly Bill 2691, prohibits someone convicted of felony human trafficking or sexual assault, which requires the individual to register as a Tier III sex offender, from running for or serving as a state or local elected official. Assemblymember Dawn Addis, who represents coastal residents from Santa Maria up to Santa Cruz, introduced the bill, which is sitting on the governor’s desk after receiving broad bipartisan support.
Addis told Lookout last week how California’s current law governing which criminal convictions disqualify someone from running for public office grew out of a “time of need” in the 2010s, when a series of politicians were convicted of crimes such as bribery and embezzlement.
“So, the California state Legislature at that time decided that it was time to take action,” Addis said. “For this very reason, that we’re seeing a proliferation of people who have committed, what I think is going to end up being felony sexual assault … we brought a law forward.”
After learning about Wilcox’s criminal history, she said that “he should not be around children” and that the Legislature is likely to continue discussing crimes that disqualify people from running for office.
Wilcox’s criminal background doesn’t disqualify him from running for office, but he could face another barrier: whether he fulfills the requirement of living within the district boundaries for PVUSD Trustee Area 5, which covers northern Watsonville.
Wilcox, who grew up in Watsonville but most recently lived in Redding, is currently under investigation by the Secretary of State regarding his residency, according to Santa Cruz County Supervisor Kim De Serpa, who previously served on the PVUSD school board.
“On my inquiry, our sheriff’s office provided a preliminary investigation and turned the matter over to the Secretary of State investigation unit for further vetting,” she told Lookout.
Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson Ashley Keehn referred questions to the Secretary of State, who said the state office “does not deny, confirm or provide comment on the potential existence of an investigation.”
Wilcox previously told Lookout he was looking to purchase a property in Watsonville, that his address varies and he’s currently using his father’s address as his residency.
De Serpa told Lookout that Wilcox is “frankly not qualified” and that his candidacy provides a “clear example of why further legislation is needed” to add requirements for people seeking office, particularly for people making decisions about youth.
She added that she thinks Wilcox’s opponent, former longtime PVUSD employee Alicia Jimenez, is a “spectacular candidate.” A third candidate on the ballot, Jennifer Schacher, is no longer actively campaigning for the seat as she is stepping back to focus more on family.
Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, who represents residents in Santa Cruz and Santa Clara counties, expressed similar concerns about Wilcox and said she thinks legislators will be discussing more restrictions during the next legislative session.
“Any conviction involving endangerment of a child raises serious concerns,” she said. “We need to look very closely at whether our law adequately reflects that responsibility.”
In addition to broad restrictions in Illinois and Virginia, many other states have laws restricting people with specific convictions. Delaware state law uses a tiered system that prohibits people convicted of misdemeanor crimes against children from school-board service for five years.
Pellerin added that it is a complex topic as people believe in rehabilitation and second chances.
“But rehabilitation and eligibility for every position of public trust aren’t necessarily the same question,” she said. “So we have to balance that opportunity for redemption with the responsibility the government has to protect the public.”
For Wang, the attorney who supports currently and formerly incarcerated people at Root & Rebound, the laws are often hurting people whose crimes are not as serious as they sound on paper.
She described two clients: one who was convicted of felony vandalism for flipping over a picnic table when he was drinking, and another who was convicted of felony child endangerment after leaving her children home alone because she couldn’t afford childcare while she was at work.
“It should be up to the people once they have full information of the candidate that’s running, to make a decision,” she said. “If the people actually respect that someone has felony convictions and has changed, or even hasn’t, but still believe that they’d be a good candidate … the democratic way is to allow people to choose.”
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.
