In a mailer sent out last week, Florida’s 9th Congressional District candidate Susannah Randolph claimed that her opponent Darren Soto tried to lower the time victims of sexual assault had to report their crime.
On Monday, Soto appeared with a group of women supporting him to refute that claim — and in fact, state the opposite: that Soto had actually worked to double the amount of time victims had to come forward after a sexual assault in SB 1270 last year.
The cause was spurred initially by a grassroots supporter, Danielle Sullivan, who had tried to come forward after a sexual assault but found she was 43 days too late from the four-year statute of limitations — leading Sullivan to name the effort “43 Days Initiative.”
Then she found a backing in Sen. Darren Soto, who, along with Rene Plasencia in the House of Representatives, took the case to Tallahassee, trying to amend the statute of limitations to 10 years rather than four.
The bill was eventually passed doubling it to eight years rather than 10. But Sullivan and other women supporting Soto had strong words about Randolph’s claim that Soto had tried to lower the time women had to report sexual assault, with Sullivan calling it “an outright lie.”
She wasn’t present at the event Monday due to a scheduling conflict, but Democratic Hispanic Caucus President Vivian Rodriguez read her statement aloud.
“I am disgusted that Susannah Randolph twisted my work around,” Sullivan wrote. “What she did was wrong. When she was confronted about it, she did not apologize. She doubled down on her lie. Susannah Randolph cannot be trusted.”
Soto evoked Hillary Clinton, quoting her in saying “women’s rights are human rights, and human rights are women’s rights,” and then he went on to say he was inspired by women in his personal life and those who worked on his campaigns. He said he was committed to protecting reproductive rights and other causes important to women.
“There are so many strong women on my campaign,” he said. “I make sure to surround myself with strong female leaders to seek their perspective.”
In regards to the controversy over the bill, Soto said it came down to politics and negotiating.
“Our original bill raised the statute of limitations to 10 years,” he said. “But we faced some pushback over that. We got it back to eight years. We wanted to get it to 10, but it was either let the bill fail, or negotiate to get the best deal I can.”
According to Randolph’s communications director, Maya Hixson, the real story of the sexual assault statute of limitations bill was different from what Soto spun — she said he had “watered down” his own bill to only six years, citing “concerns with preserving evidence,” in a move that critics said protected criminals rather than victims.
Randolph’s campaign manager, Lauren Doney, said Soto’s record on women’s rights was “abysmal.”
“It’s important to note that this isn’t the first time that Darren Soto has been called out for playing politics with women’s health and safety,” she said. “In fact, he was the only Democratic legislator called out by Planned Parenthood for voting for mandatory ultrasound legislation. His record on women’s issues is abysmal, and he can’t erase that fact, no matter how many fundraising emails he sends, news conferences he holds, or news releases he sends. There’s a reason why women’s groups have overwhelmingly supported Susannah Randolph in this race.”
2 comments
Tastan Turkoricua
August 1, 2016 at 9:20 pm
How dare you put a limit for us. You are an insult for us survivors. You all government propelled individuals think out of your butts. Sexual abuse should be reported at the time the victim is ready, not when the government decides is right for them. What do you people know about sexual abuse? You reply to me with an intelligent statement…
Katherine Cancino
August 2, 2016 at 12:31 am
Women’s right are human right? Where are my rights Sen Soto when you said in my Parenting Modification case that I shouldn’t have the 50/50 timesharing because I don’t have a job.. basically saying I am not good enough for my son because I’m not working and that shows that I am unstable.. which is not true because I do have a job, and also you said in my face that the only reason I want to have more time with my son is because I want the Child support and also asked me to waive the $59 I will be receiving for child support. Are those the rights you are talking about?
Comments are closed.