A dozen statewide propositions have qualified for the November ballot. It’s a lot, although one or more could be pulled from consideration in the coming months. (And The Times’ editorial board will be there to help voters negotiate the long ballot with deeply reported recommendations.)
Thankfully, voters won’t face a discriminatory proposition that would have required teachers and school administrators to inform parents about their child’s gender identity at school and to enact anti-trans bathroom and sports policies for students. Proponents of the ironically named Protect Kids California campaign, which also would have restricted medical care for transgender youth, announced this week that they failed to gather the more than half a million signatures needed to qualify for the November ballot.
It’s a relief because, while California voters often make the right choice when faced with truly bad ballot proposals, they sometimes go astray. Remember Proposition 8 in 2008, which banned same-sex marriage? (The measure was overturned, and voters will be asked to reaffirm gay marriage protections in November.)
Still it’s disheartening that the group was able to collect more than 400,000 signatures from mostly Southern California counties. We don’t know if all of the signatures are valid; but if even half are, that’s a lot of Californians who either don’t fully understand what the measure would do, agree with it or don’t care.
They should care, because the proposal is intolerant, mean-spirited and completely unnecessary. There’s no evidence of a wave of students being assaulted or harassed by transgender classmates. The only trend is that cities and states run by Republicans have embraced these anti-transgender policies, mislabeling them “parental rights.”
The initiative would have required schools to tell parents if their child started using pronouns for a gender not assigned at birth, even if doing so could put the kid at risk of abuse. It also would have taken rights away from parents by outlawing gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers, for minors even if parents are fully on board and it has been recommended by doctors as medically necessary.
Furthermore, the proposal required that students use school bathrooms conforming to their gender assigned at birth, and it would have banned trans girls from playing on girls sports team in high school and in college.
Though the particular initiative won’t make the 2024 ballot, the issues behind it are still very much in play in the state. Some school boards have passed parental notification laws, and the California Legislature is considering a bill that would stop the trend by banning school boards from adopting notification laws and shielding teachers from retaliation.
And, despite the recent setback, Jonathan Zachreson, a Roseville, Calif., school board member and the measure’s chief proponent, says his group will try to qualify the measure on a future ballot. It’s a shame that, of all the problems facing California at the moment, they would chose to focus their energy to attack transgender adolescents.
