A battle over 100 words

That is the court fight some parents in California are waging against Democratic lawmakers and the Newsom Administration, who are trying to stop voters from a proposed ballot measure that would require schools to notify parents if a child is changing their gender. The initiative would also protect female sports from transgender athletes (born males) and mandate that students use school facilities consistent with their birth gender.Polls show a majority of Californian voters support the measures. However, the state legislature, where Democrats enjoy a super majority, refused to hear the bill, and Democrat State Attorney General Rob Bonta changed the initiative’s title from “Protect Kids of California Act” to the “Restrict Rights of Transgender Youth” initiative.CALIFORNIA LAWMAKERS ADVANCE BILL CREATING GENEALOGY OFFICE TO DETERMINE REPARATIONS ELIGIBILITYSupporters also say Bonta changed the required 100-word summary of the initiative in a negative, misleading and pejorative way that they claim makes it nearly impossible to gather signatures or raise money.”His bias on these issues is clear, and he’s allowed to have his opinion,” says Dean McGee of the Liberty Justice Center, which brought the lawsuit against Bonta. “What he’s not allowed to do is mess with the democratic process in California. Rebrand this initiative in a way that makes it likely to fail, instead of giving it a fair shot at the ballot.”CALIFORNIA BILL AIMS TO BAN NO-PET POLICIES, ANIMAL FEES AT RENTAL HOUSING PROPERTIESAccording to state statute, the Attorney General is required to “give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure” so that it “shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure.” On Thursday night, a judge tentatively denied the parents’ lawsuit, saying statutes also give the Attorney General “considerable latitude in preparing a title and summary” and “only upon clear and convincing proof” that the title and summary is “false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements” of the (elections code), can a judge step in.NEWSOM REFUSES TO BACK FELLOW DEMS TAKING ON GOOGLE, BIG TECH THROUGH NEWS LINK LEGISLATIONSacramento County Superior Court Judge Stephen Acquisto previously served as the chief deputy legal affairs lawyer for then Governor Jerry Brown.The parent activist group cited research showing that most voters only read an initiative’s title and summary. It claims changing words such as “protect,” “ensure,” and “fairness” to “require, restrict and prohibit” typically doom measures to fail at the ballot box.CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARD PRESIDENT ORDERED TO PAY LEGAL FEES AFTER LGBTQ FLAG DEBATE, DEATH THREATS”He’s attempting to bypass California’s abilities to evaluate this issue neutrally by writing a biased summary that people will be unlikely to support,” claims McGee. Leaders of Protect Kids California also say Bonta, a potential gubernatorial candidate, should be “conflicted out” because he’s already suing to stop the Chino Valley School District from adopting a similar policy.Bonta’s office issued this statement.”Under California law, the Attorney General’s Office is responsible for issuing official titles and summaries describing the chief purpose and points of every proposed initiative… and stand by our title and summary for this measure.”Judge Acquisto heard arguments Friday afternoon challenging his ruling. The parents’ group says it will likely appeal and hope to get on the 2026 ballot.
Go to Source

Scroll to Top