“earful that the individual wanting to run will challenge current registration laws.”

That and she doesn’t want us to be looked up upon and seen as mentors and leaders.

This woman just doesn’t want anyone with this label to treated as equals and humanized.

A Fresno resident, Rene Campos, has successfully qualified for the June ballot for City Council, meeting every legal requirement set by the State of California. His eligibility is not in dispute. However, a civil disparity has now been raised by some who question whether a person subject to certain civil restrictions should be allowed to serve, even though state law does not treat those restrictions as disqualifying.
In a civil society, we should also recognize and appreciate the work that Councilmember Annalisa Perea has done for her community. Public service is demanding, and those who step forward deserve acknowledgment for their commitment. Her dedication to Fresno is not in question.
At the same time, the civil laws being invoked here operate in ways that conflict with the constitutional values Californians claim to uphold. If we believe in the California Constitution — and I trust that she does — then it is worth reconsidering the stance behind this proposed ordinance. The issue is not Rene Campos as an individual; it is the precedent of restricting ballot access based on a civil regulatory status rather than evidence, due process, or demonstrated risk.
These civil restrictions were created as narrow, location‑based rules, not as judgments of character and not as tools for political exclusion. They regulate specific activities, but they do not remove a person’s rights to walk through public spaces, enter government buildings, vote, participate in civic life, or run for office. They were never designed to determine who is fit to serve in elected government.
When a civil regulatory scheme is used to deny a candidate access to the ballot, the line between civil regulation and unconstitutional punishment collapses. The state avoids triggering constitutional protections — due process, equal protection, and political participation — by calling these rules “civil.” But when that civil label is used to exclude someone from democratic life, it sidesteps the very Bill of Rights that protects every Californian’s pursuit of happiness, family, community, and civic participation.
This is why the contradiction matters. Ordinary quality‑of‑life activities may be restricted under these civil rules, while civic activities — voting, entering government buildings, serving in office — remain fully lawful. The person does not change. Only the legal category changes. And when that category is used to eliminate a political opponent or narrow the choices available to voters, civil regulation becomes a political tool rather than a public‑safety measure.
Laws should protect the public, not restrict ordinary life or create fear where none is warranted. Democratic systems work best when laws are grounded in evidence and fairness, and when voters — not hastily written ordinances — decide who is fit to serve.
The California Constitution makes this even clearer. Article II, Section 2 guarantees that every qualified citizen has the right to run for public office, and Article II, Section 3 guarantees that voters have the right to choose their representatives freely. These protections are fundamental to our system of self‑government. A city cannot create new disqualifying categories that the state itself has rejected, nor can it use a civil regulatory status to narrow the choices available to voters. When local government attempts to override these constitutional guarantees, it does more than target one candidate — it undermines the rights of every voter in Fresno. The ballot belongs to the people, not to ordinances weaponized in the heat of the moment.

1) Those are his city govt buildings too as he lives and breathes there and pays for them as much as others do to access, build, and maintain them as well as the service therein. Unless, they decide all convicted persons are banned from them, banning him as a PFR is unconstitutional regardless if there are minors in the area.

2) Banning someone from being elected to and serving in a public office position who has a specific conviction is unconstitutional. Unless, they decide all convicted persons are banned from being elected, banning him as a PFR is unconstitutional.

3) Just because he may be banned from educational facilities because of the nature of his conviction’s continuing punishment on the registry, does not mean he should be when it comes to fulfilling the duties of the position as required. Again, fear mongering at its best by thinking he will scoop up a minor and run for the hills with them. I’d merely inform the council there are PFRs in waiting on the school grounds already (whether a parent, school resource officer, or school system employee) who have yet to be caught by their actions, whether with a person or an image. If the ban is so stringent to where the school grounds is banned 24/7, even when it is not in use for educational purposes or being used otherwise, then it is overbroad and needs to be stricken.

They are giving everyone the perfect set of conditions to publicly challenge their thinking against this gent and show everyone the craziness of the paradigm today when it comes to paying debt to society and being able to move on. I hope everyone will take this opp and let’em know at their next open forum section of the council mtg, in the media, etc. If anything, the city general counsel (GC) should be involved in advising them of the errors they are thinking of making. Make the GC aware and help them do their job publicly.

Barring some distinction of the opposition simply to bar the opposition.
They must be extremely corrupt to think the RSO will get the votes over the establishment.

Makes you wonder.