Chethana Janith, Jadetimes Staff
C. Janith is a Jadetimes news reporter covering science and geopolitics.
Just over three months ago, Vice President Kamala Harris stepped up to a microphone to deliver a speech that would reflect both her history and her vision for the future.
The day before, President Joe Biden had exited the election race and endorsed her as the Democratic candidate. With limited time to campaign, Harris needed to make every moment count.
In politics, there’s an adage: define yourself or be defined by your opponent. During that pivotal moment, Harris introduced herself to the American public not only through her tenure in the White House or as a U.S. senator but also by emphasizing her years of experience as a California prosecutor.
“I held perpetrators accountable—those who harmed women, fraudsters who deceived consumers, and rule-breakers who sought unfair advantages. So, believe me when I say: I know the kind of person Donald Trump is,” she remarked, referencing her Republican opponent.
This line has become a staple at her campaign events, as the 60-year-old has framed the election as a matchup between a seasoned prosecutor and a defendant facing multiple legal challenges, regularly pointing to Trump’s legal issues.
However, an examination of Harris’s career in and outside California’s courtrooms highlights her ongoing struggle to clearly define herself. Critics argue she has shifted positions based on political circumstances, yet she also has a notable ability to capitalize on moments when she has been underestimated.
Street murders and rough San Francisco politics
Harris's career in law enforcement began shortly after graduating from law school in Alameda County, California, which encompasses cities like Berkeley and her hometown of Oakland.
In the 1990s, Oakland was grappling with high levels of violent crime, intensified by the government's ongoing "war on drugs."
For a young prosecutor, the role was both challenging and prestigious. The gravity of the cases made it a coveted position for ambitious attorneys, according to Teresa Drenick, who worked alongside Harris at the time.
“It was a high-pressure environment, and the emotional toll of dealing with such distressing cases daily was difficult to manage. The stakes were incredibly high, and the crimes were severe,” Drenick recalled.
“It was during the peak of the crack-cocaine crisis. There were gang-related murders and violent incidents happening on street corners. Oakland’s situation provided opportunities for prosecutors to tackle some of the most serious cases,” she explained.
Drenick and Harris were part of the same trial team, and Drenick admired Harris’s poise in front of juries. Her respect for Harris grew even further when Harris was reassigned to a unit focused on child sexual assault cases in the same courthouse.
“She had a unique way of connecting with child abuse victims, showing great care and creating an environment where they felt safe to share their experiences,” Drenick noted.
Around this time, Harris was involved with Willie Brown, a significant figure in local politics and the speaker of the California State Assembly. Brown, known for launching the careers of several prominent political figures, including Governor Gavin Newsom and San Francisco Mayor London Breed, played a role in introducing Harris to influential circles.
He appointed her to two state boards and connected her with some of San Francisco’s most notable Democratic donors. Their brief relationship ended before Brown became the city's mayor in 1995. By 1998, Harris had joined the San Francisco district attorney’s office.
During her time with Brown, who was three decades her senior, Harris began navigating the city’s dynamic political scene, mingling with key figures. San Francisco’s political environment, described by Harris as “a bare-knuckled sport,” was known for shaping major national leaders, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the late Senator Dianne Feinstein.
Harris built connections with both women and rose alongside peers like Newsom as she established herself in politics. Her rapid ascent in San Francisco’s competitive political landscape included days spent in court advocating for victims and evenings attending high-profile political events.
During this period, Harris also developed a close friendship with Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs. Powell Jobs became one of Harris’s significant supporters, initially donating $500 to her 2003 campaign for San Francisco district attorney, which Harris won by unseating her former boss. Two decades later, Powell Jobs contributed nearly $1 million to the Biden-Harris re-election effort, according to Fortune. While the exact amount she has donated to Harris’s presidential campaign is not publicly known, it is believed to be substantial.
Sticking to Principles
Just four months into Kamala Harris’s role as San Francisco district attorney, a tragic incident occurred the day before Easter in 2004: a gang member wielding an AK-47 rifle shot and killed 29-year-old police officer Isaac Espinoza.
The city was shocked, and many politicians and police officials demanded the death penalty. However, Harris, who had campaigned against capital punishment, opted instead for a life sentence without parole. She announced this decision publicly just two days after the murder, without notifying the officer’s widow in advance.
“She didn’t call me,” Espinoza’s widow told CNN in 2019. “I don’t understand why she made the announcement on camera without speaking to the family first. It felt rushed, like she couldn’t even wait until he was buried.”
The reaction was intense. At the officer’s funeral, Senator Feinstein called for the death penalty for the killer and later told reporters she might not have endorsed Harris if she’d known about her stance on capital punishment.
Harris defended her choice, writing in the *San Francisco Chronicle* that “there can be no exception to principle.”
Civil rights attorney John Burris, who supported Harris at the time, said, “Politically, it wasn’t a wise move, but it was a matter of principle for her. She stood firm despite facing significant backlash, and it was a progressive stance.”
Despite the controversy, which could have ended her political career, Harris persevered. Raised by a single mother in the working-class city of Oakland, she remained focused on her goals. Brian Brokaw, who managed her successful campaigns for California attorney general, described her as not a “political animal” but someone committed to achieving meaningful results.
“For her, politics is a means to an end,” Brokaw explained. “She’s more concerned with the impact she can have on people’s lives than the political process itself.”
Harris appeared to learn from her first major decision as San Francisco district attorney. Four years later, she again chose not to seek the death penalty in a high-profile case but approached the situation with more awareness of its impact.
The case involved Tony Bologna, who was driving with his three sons in San Francisco when their car was struck by gunfire. Bologna and two of his sons were killed, while the third son was critically injured.
Police arrested Edwin Ramon Umaña, an undocumented member of the MS-13 gang, who had mistaken Bologna for a rival gang member. This time, before announcing her decision, Harris personally delivered the news to Bologna’s widow, Danielle, according to Matt Davis, who represented Danielle in a civil case against the city.
“Danielle had a very strong, negative reaction,” Davis recalled in an interview. “She expressed her anger, and Kamala listened and expressed her condolences, but she remained firm in her decision.”
Davis, who had known Harris since law school and initially doubted her chances of becoming district attorney, was struck by her composure and determination during that difficult conversation.
“It was not an easy thing to do,” Davis said, acknowledging how it changed his perception of her.
Progressive prosecutor?
Throughout her career in law enforcement, Harris’s supporters have tried to portray her as a “progressive prosecutor” who balanced criminal justice reform with being tough on crime.
It was a challenging balance to maintain in a liberal city within one of the most left-leaning states. Critics from both the left and the right have argued that she did not always stay consistent.
As district attorney, Harris introduced a “smart-on-crime” approach, which aimed to reduce prison time for non-violent offenders by offering job training programs and keeping young offenders in school. Niki Solis, a San Francisco public defender, noted that Harris was open to discussing concerns, such as ensuring young victims of sex trafficking were treated as victims rather than criminals.
“I noticed she understood issues that other district attorneys often overlooked,” Solis said.
Despite these efforts, conservatives labeled Harris as part of the “San Francisco liberal elite,” while some progressives criticized her for not pushing reforms far enough, even calling her “Kamala the cop.”
By the time Harris was elected California’s attorney general in 2010, her progressive image had become more pragmatic. Gil Duran, who briefly worked for Harris, noted, “She was looking to make a national impact and was seen as a rising star.”
Harris soon gained national attention. In 2012, during negotiations over a financial settlement with major U.S. banks following the financial crisis, she threatened to walk away unless California received a better deal. Her push resulted in the state securing $18 billion, although only $4.5 billion directly benefited homeowners affected by unfair lending practices.
Harris also made decisions that upset some liberals. She expanded a truancy program statewide, which led to some parents being arrested by county prosecutors. Additionally, she opposed a Supreme Court order to reduce prison overcrowding.
In a controversial move, Harris reversed her stance on the death penalty in 2014. As attorney general, she defended California’s right to enforce it, even though she had previously refused to seek capital punishment based on principle.
Critics, like criminal justice professor Hadar Aviram, argued that Harris should have stood by her beliefs. “If you have the chance to take a stand on something you believe is morally wrong, you should do so,” Aviram told CNN in 2019.
Louise Renne, a former San Francisco city attorney who worked with Harris after she left Oakland, defended Harris against the criticism she faced for supporting the death penalty. “As state attorney general, it was her duty to uphold the law,” Renne told the BBC. “I don’t see that as a weakness or a fair criticism.”
However, Harris didn’t enforce all laws equally. In 2004, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed same-sex marriages despite state law prohibiting them, Harris not only supported his decision but also officiated some of the ceremonies. She described it as “one of the most joyful” moments of her career.
Her extensive record as a prosecutor became a challenge when she was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2016 and later ran for the Democratic presidential nomination. Harris launched her 2020 campaign near the Alameda County Courthouse, where she had once used the phrase “for the people,” which became her campaign slogan.
But her campaign faced obstacles. The murder of George Floyd by a police officer in 2020 sparked a national movement for racial justice and police reform. Harris’s past positions on the death penalty and prison reform drew criticism from progressives within her party.
Ultimately, she ended her presidential run before the primary elections even began.
