Why Curren Price?
The case of Councilmember Curren Price Jr. has highlighted how race, narrative, and selective scrutiny can shape public perception before a verdict is reached. While legal proceedings focus on alleged conflicts and ethics concerns, many in his South Los Angeles community know Price as a committed leader who has long served and supported residents. Across the United States, research shows that people of color often face disproportionate investigations, selective prosecution, and unequal enforcement, raising serious questions about fairness under the law. This platform seeks to provide context, share research, and amplify voices calling for justice, accountability, and equal treatment for all.
Racial Disparities and High-Profile Prosecution
Recent public discussions surrounding Curren Price Jr. have raised broader questions about whether racial disparities may influence how investigations and prosecutions are pursued. Across the country, studies have shown that people of color—particularly Black public officials—are sometimes subject to heightened scrutiny, more aggressive investigations, and harsher prosecutorial approaches compared to others in similar positions. These concerns are often tied to systemic bias and patterns of unequal enforcement, where discretion within the justice system may produce disproportionate outcomes.
While each case must be evaluated on its own facts, the situation highlights why justice reform remains critical. Transparency in prosecutorial decision-making, consistent standards of enforcement, and data-driven oversight are essential to ensure that actions are not influenced—intentionally or unintentionally—by race or public perception. The broader issue is not only about one individual, but about maintaining public trust that the justice system operates fairly and equally for all.
Selective Prosecution and the Erosion of Public Trust
Selective prosecution refers to a situation in which an individual is singled out for criminal charges while others engaging in similar conduct are not pursued. Although prosecutors have broad authority—known as prosecutorial discretion—to decide which cases to bring, that discretion must be exercised fairly and consistently. When enforcement appears uneven or influenced by impermissible factors such as race, politics, or public profile, it raises serious concerns about equal protection under the law.
The case involving Curren Price Jr. has prompted discussion around whether selective prosecution may be at issue—the concern that certain individuals may be targeted while others engaging in similar conduct are not pursued. Prosecutors are granted wide discretion, but when enforcement appears inconsistent, it can raise questions about fairness, especially in high-profile or politically sensitive cases.
Allegations of political targeting or uneven application of the law can undermine confidence in the justice system, even if unproven. For that reason, it is essential that prosecutorial decisions are grounded in clear, consistent standards and supported by transparent processes. Ensuring accountability while protecting against selective enforcement is a delicate balance—one that is fundamental to upholding equal protection under the law and preserving the integrity of the justice system.
The price of success for women of color
At the center of this case is a dangerous precedent—one that blurs the line between correlation and corruption and unfairly targets a successful, independent businesswoman who has not been charged with any crime. Curren Price’s wife is a legitimate, accomplished professional whose consulting work spans multiple agencies and decades, built on her own merit—not political influence. Yet prosecutors are attempting to weaponize her success, using it as a proxy to construct a narrative of wrongdoing where no direct evidence, no quid-pro-quo, and no criminal charges exist against her. This is not accountability—it is overreach, stretching complex disclosure laws and conflict-of-interest rules beyond their intent to create the appearance of impropriety.
This approach is especially troubling because successful women are often used as a pathway to target their husbands, families, or professional associates. Rather than being recognized for their own accomplishments, women are too often portrayed as extensions of the men in their lives, as though their careers, earnings, and expertise could not possibly stand on their own. Accomplished women—particularly women of color—frequently face greater scrutiny, harsher judgment, and unfair assumptions that their success must be tied to influence, favoritism, or wrongdoing rather than talent, experience, and hard work.
For women of color, these stereotypes can be even more damaging. Their professional achievements are too often minimized, questioned, or treated with suspicion in ways that would not occur for others in similar positions. Instead of being viewed as respected consultants, business owners, or professionals, they are unfairly cast as political liabilities or convenient targets. That is not fairness, and it is not justice. It reinforces harmful stereotypes that successful women, especially Black women and other women of color, are somehow undeserving of the success they have earned.
The damage from these allegations extends far beyond the courtroom. This case has cost Del millions of dollars in contract value, business opportunities, and professional relationships. In some cases, compensation that was owed for work performed long before Curren Price held office has been withheld or questioned simply because of association and public perception. Years of legitimate work, professional reputation, and earned success have been overshadowed by accusations that have yet to be proven. Except for faithful clients and colleagues who know the truth and understand the quality and integrity of the work performed, many have unfairly distanced themselves based on headlines rather than facts.
When lawful earnings and professional achievements are mischaracterized as corruption, it raises serious concerns about fairness, selective enforcement, and political targeting. In California and across the country, many alleged disclosure errors, reporting omissions, and conflict-of-interest concerns involving public officials have historically been addressed through administrative penalties, ethics reviews, disclosure corrections, or civil fines—not criminal prosecutions. Public officials and candidates of all backgrounds have faced late filing penalties, Form 700 omissions, campaign reporting fines, and conflict-of-interest reviews that were resolved administratively rather than through criminal court. The Fair Political Practices Commission itself notes that the vast majority of ethics and disclosure cases are handled through administrative enforcement and fines, not criminal prosecution.
This case disproportionately pursues Curren Price and his family in a way that creates the perception that prosecution is being used as a political tool rather than a pursuit of justice. That concern is heightened when successful women—particularly women of color—are treated not as independent professionals, but as vehicles through which prosecutors can target their husbands, families, or political associates. Correlation is not corruption, and guilt by association is not justice. Allowing this case to proceed undermines due process, and erodes public confidence in a legal system that must remain grounded in facts—not assumptions, stereotypes, selective enforcement, or political agendas.