First-of-its-kind measure to help build and preserve more than 70,000 homes
Contra Costa County would receive $1.9 billion
By John Goodwin, Assistant Director of Communications & Rebecca Long, Director, Legislation & Public Affairs, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
The Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) on Wednesday, June 26, 2024, adopted a resolution to place a general obligation bond measure on the November 5 general election ballot in each of the nine Bay Area counties to raise and distribute $20 billion for the production of new affordable housing and the preservation of existing affordable housing throughout the region. BAHFA is jointly governed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)’s Executive Board and by the BAHFA Board, which is comprised of the same membership as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).
The bond could create 72,000 new affordable homes – more than double what would be possible without a bond. Without more funding, only about 71,000 affordable homes will be built or preserved in the Bay Area over the next 15 years – a status quo that is failing to meet the needs of the people who live and work here.
Currently, the Bay Area doesn’t have enough homes for the people who live here. As a result of the region’s housing shortage:
In 2022, 37,000 people were unhoused in the Bay Area.
1.4 million people—23% of Bay Area renters—spend over half their income on rent.
High rents and home prices force people to live far from work, making congestion and pollution much worse, and putting a major strain on working families.
Too many Bay Area residents live in overcrowded and unsafe housing.
Vital employees and community members are leaving the area.
Wednesday’s unanimous vote by the BAHFA Board marks the final discretionary step in the process to place the measure on the November ballot. Under state law, each Bay Area county will now take a non-discretionary, ministerial vote to place the measure on the ballot in that county, in accordance with election deadlines.
The BAHFA bond measure currently would require approval by at least two-thirds of voters to pass. Voters throughout California this November will consider Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 (ACA 1) — which would set the voter threshold at 55 percent for voter approval of bond measures for affordable housing and infrastructure. If a majority of California voters support ACA 1, the 55 percent threshold will apply to the BAHFA bond measure.
“Today’s vote is the culmination of so many years of effort by so many people all around our region,” observed BAHFA Chair and Napa County Supervisor Alfredo Pedroza. “The Bay Area’s longstanding housing affordability problems affect all of us, our friends, our neighbors and our family members. This vote is about preserving opportunity for everyone.”
Source: BAHFA
The proposed BAHFA bond measure calls for 80 percent of the funds to go directly to the nine Bay Area counties (and to the cities of San Jose, Oakland, Santa Rosa and Napa, each of which carries more than 30 percent of their county’s low-income housing need), in proportion to each county’s tax contribution to the bond. In consultation with its cities and towns, each county would determine how to distribute bond funds to best meet its jurisdictions’ most pressing housing needs. These distributions would include:
Contra Costa County: $1.9 billion
Alameda County: $2 billion
Marin County: $699 million
Napa County: $118 million
San Francisco County: $2.4 billion
San Mateo County: $2.1 billion
Santa Clara County: $2.4 billion
Solano County: $489 million
Sonoma County: $553 million
City of Napa: $246 million
City of Oakland: $765 million
City of San Jose: $2.1 billion
City of Santa Rosa: $242 million
The remaining 20 percent, or $4 billion, would be used by BAHFA to establish a new regional program to fund affordable housing construction and preservation projects throughout the Bay Area. Most of this money (at least 52 percent) must be spent on new construction of affordable homes, but every city and county receiving a bond allocation must also spend at least 15 percent of the funds to preserve existing affordable housing. Almost one-third of funds may be used for the production or preservation of affordable housing, or for housing-related uses such as infrastructure needed to support new housing.
Source: BAHFA
The California Constitution currently does not allow bond funds to be used for tenant protections such as rental assistance, but planned investments in new housing and affordable housing preservation will protect tens of thousands of low-income renters and vulnerable residents.
The BAHFA Board also adopted, on Wednesday, resolutions approving the Authority’s Business Plan and its Regional Expenditure Plan, which explain the prioritization for use of the funds that would be directly administered by BAHFA.
Oversight and accountability provisions to be included in the BAHFA bond measure include the creation of a special bond proceeds account; establishment of a Citizens’ Oversight Committee that would review the expenditure of bond proceeds and report to the BAHFA and ABAG Executive Boards on whether the funds were spent appropriately; an independent annual performance audit; a requirement that all bond-projects be consistent with state laws on labor standards; a requirement that administrative costs not exceed the amount prescribed in state law; and a prohibition against any public official who voted to send the ballot measure to the voters bidding on any work funded with proceeds from the bond.
The ABAG Executive Board voted unanimously at its April meeting to adopt a resolution approving BAHFA’s Business Plan and its Expenditure Plan, as well as to endorse placement of the bond measure on the November ballot. In her remarks preceding the vote, ABAG President and Napa County Supervisor Belia Ramos noted, “This is a remarkable milestone moment for our region. Housing stability is essential for our community to thrive, and this proposal is a once-in-a-generation opportunity.”
Community Ambassadors meeting. Photo: CCC Elections Division
“Contra Costa County is home to one of the safest, most secure, and transparent election systems in the nation.”
By Contra Costa Elections Division
In light of a growing tide of election misinformation, the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department is taking a stand. The Elections Division is launching a far-reaching marketing and community engagement campaign this week to reassure voters of election integrity and security by shining a light on the comprehensive steps taken to deliver on that promise.
“Elections are more secure than ever and we’re proud of Contra Costa County’s reputation for fair and secure elections. We have to make sure our voters know about the work we’re doing and have the information that inspires faith in our elections,” says Kristin B. Connelly, Contra Costa Registrar of Voters.
Asked for examples of election misinformation in Contra Costa County, the Election Division’s Community and Media Relations Coordinator Dawn Kruger responded, “Unfortunately, we’ve seen and heard lots of misinformation on social media and media comment sections as well as at community meetings.
Some of the most common misconceptions and questions we get are about voter registration requirements, voting by mail, how we prevent voter fraud, and how we secure election technology.
Thanks to the 48 election security safeguards we have in place, elections are more secure than ever, and we want to show voters everything the Contra Costa County Elections Division does to protect their vote. That’s why we’ve compiled all the information voters may want to know and made it available to the public. Voters can get clear and accurate information and responses to some of the most common questions about election security at www.secure-election.org/facts.”
Source: CCC Elections Division
Marketing Campaign
A multi-faceted marketing campaign is in place to deliver that message. In addition to county-wide advertising in print, television, radio and digital media, the campaign also includes the recruitment and training of nearly 100 election ambassadors who have volunteered to carry forward the election integrity message through social media channels and speaking engagements around the county. A companion website, www.secure-election.org, has also been launched, which includes a comprehensive collection of videos, fact sheets, Q&As and social media graphics illustrating how Contra Costa County protects its elections. All this is complemented by opportunities for the public to observe election activities and the county’s award-winning Certified Election Observer program.
“While trust in Contra Costa County elections is high, we’re facing a growing tide of mis- and disinformation that confuses voters and undermines the legitimacy of our elections,” said Kruger. “This voter education campaign fights those myths with solid facts and information, equipping volunteers in our community with a host of tools to help put the real story out there about how safe elections are.”
Contra Costa County was one of 10 election divisions nationwide to be awarded a grant to improve its election processes and chose to pilot this voter education work. The ambitious and robust campaign is expected to reach every resident of the county multiple times and in different ways, hammering home the many steps and precautions in place to ensure only eligible voters vote, that every legitimate vote is counted, and that the county’s election system is secure from fraud. The campaign is predicated on transparency, inviting the public to look more closely at how elections are handled and the exhaustive efforts to protect them.
The first wave of election integrity advertising will run June – July and a second wave will run September – October. These advertisements will coincide with the ambassador’s social media efforts and speaking engagements. Any organization interested in scheduling an ambassador speaking engagement can email info@contracostavote.org. For more information about the campaign and election security, visit secure-election.org.
“The measure exceeds the scope of the power to amend the Constitution via citizen initiative” – CA Supreme Court
“Today’s ruling is the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory…the California Supreme Court has put politics ahead of the Constitution” – Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability
By Allen D. Payton
In response to a lawsuit by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state legislature, the California Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled, today, Thursday, June 20, 2024, the measure known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act amounts to an illegal constitutional revision and removed it from the November election ballot. However, proponents vowed tocontinue to explore their legal options and efforts to minimize
According to Ballotpedia, “The initiative would have amended the California Constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes. The initiative would have also required new or increased taxes to be passed by a two-thirds legislative vote in each chamber and approved by a simple majority of voters. It would also have increased the vote requirement for local taxes proposed by local government or citizens to a two-thirds vote of the local electorate. The increased vote requirements for new or higher taxes would have not applied to citizen-initiated state ballot measures. As of 2024, state tax increases require approval by a two-thirds vote in each chamber or a simple majority vote at a statewide election
In addition, a ‘yes’ vote on the measure would have supported “amending the state constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes and to require new state taxes proposed by the state legislature to be enacted via a two-thirds legislative vote and voter approval and new local taxes to be enacted via a two-thirds vote of the electorate.”
However, according to the Associated Press, “The biggest impact…would have been that the measure threatened to retroactively reverse most tax increases approved since Jan. 1, 2022. Local governments warned they would have lost billions of dollars in revenue that had previously approved by voters. And it would have threatened recent statewide tax increases.”
Proponents
Proponents of the measure, Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability, self-described as “a bipartisan coalition of homeowners, taxpayers and businesses committed to ensuring California remains affordable for families and accountable to its voters,” led the campaign in support of the initiative. The campaign explained the initiative, saying, “The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act will give voters the right to vote on all future state taxes and holds politicians accountable for new fees and other increased costs paid by working families and all Californians. The measure increases accountability by requiring politicians to spend new or higher tax revenue on its intended purpose. It will provide much-needed relief to families, farmers, and business owners, helping them to combat the growing cost-of-living crisis facing all Californians.”
According to the NAIOP, the measure would have given “voters the right to vote on all future state taxes and holds politicians accountable for new fees and other increased costs paid by working families and all Californians.” It would have increased “accountability by requiring politicians to spend new or higher tax revenue on its intended purpose. It will provide much-needed relief to families, farmers, and business owners, helping them to combat the growing cost-of-living crisis facing all Californians. The Act doesn’t cut any current state or local government funding. It simply gives voters the right to vote on all future tax increases and stops working families from paying billions more in “hidden taxes” imposed by unelected bureaucrats. They are currently gathering signatures and will need $70 million in fundraising efforts to pass the ballot measure in November of 2022.”
Supporters Respond, Will Seek Legal Options, Continue Efforts
In response to the court’s ruling, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) campaign issued the following statement from Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) and Matthew Hargrove, president and CEO of the California Business Properties Association:
“Today’s ruling is the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory. Governor Newsom has effectively erased the voice of 1.43 million voters who signed the petition to qualify the Taxpayer Protection Act for the November ballot. Most importantly, the governor has cynically terminated Californians’ rights to engage in direct democracy despite his many claims that he is a defender of individual rights and democracy. Evidently, the governor wants to protect democracy and individual rights in other states, but not for all Californians.
We are disappointed that the California Supreme Court has put politics ahead of the Constitution, disregarding long-standing precedent that they should not intervene in an election before voters decide qualified initiatives.
Direct democracy and our initiative process are now at risk with this decision, showing California is firmly a one-party state where the governor and Legislature can politically influence courts to block ballot measures that threaten their ability to increase spending and raise taxes. Using the courts to block voters’ voices is the latest effort from the Democrats’ supermajority to remove any accountability measures that interfere with their agenda – a failed agenda that continues to drive up the cost of living with little accountability and few results.
This ruling sends a damning message to businesses in California and across the country that it is politically perilous to invest and grow jobs for the future.
In light of this ruling and the state’s large budget deficit, a huge amount of tax increases are on the way that are sure to make California’s cost of living even higher.
We will continue to explore our legal options and fight for the people’s right to hold their government accountable through direct democracy.”
———–
Opponents
The measure was opposed by Governor Newsom, CA Attorney General Rob Bonta, FSCME California, SEIU California State Council, California Special Districts Association, California State Association of Counties, and League of California Cities. Graham Knaus, executive director of the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), said, “This deceptive initiative would undermine the rights of local voters and their elected officials to make decisions on critical local services that residents rely upon. It creates major new tax loopholes at the expense of residents and will weaken our local services and communities.”
Bonta had relabeled the measure’s title to, “Limits Ability of Voters and State and Local Governments to Raise Revenues for Government Services. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.” The summary he required to be included on signature petition sheets read as follows: “For new or increased state taxes currently enacted by two-thirds vote of Legislature, also requires statewide election and majority voter approval. Limits voters’ ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by raising vote requirement to two-thirds. Eliminates voters’ ability to advise how to spend revenues from proposed general tax on same ballot as the proposed tax. Expands definition of ‘taxes’ to include certain regulatory fees, broadening application of tax approval requirements. Requires Legislature or local governing body set certain other fees.”
In spite of that, supporters were still able to gather the required signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. The signature gathering occurred in 2022.
Court’s Decision
According to information about the case #S281977 entitled LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. WEBER (HILTACHK) on the state Supreme Court’s website, it “presented the following issues: (1) Does the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) constitute an impermissible attempted revision of the California Constitution by voter initiative? (2) Is this initiative measure subject to invalidation on the ground that, if adopted, it would impair essential government functions?”
The court wrote in its unanimous opinion, “we conclude that the TPA would clearly ‘accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision’ of the (state) Constitution. The measure exceeds the scope of the power to amend the Constitution via citizen initiative.”
“It is within the people’s prerogative to make these changes, but they must be undertaken in a manner commensurate with their gravity: through the process for revision set forth in Article XVIII of the Constitution,” the decision continued.
The court concluded by “directing the (CA) Secretary of State to refrain from taking steps to place” the initiative “on the November 5, 2024 election ballot or to include the measure in the voter information guide.”
However, Section 3 of that Article clearly reads, “The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.” Coupal of the HJTA was asked to explain what the court is referring to and what other approach or process should the proponents have followed. He did not respond prior to publication time.
MARTINEZ, CA—State Assembly candidate Anamarie Avila Farias announced, Thursday, June 13, 2024, the endorsement of Contra Costa Assemblyman Tim Grayson (D-15) for her campaign to represent Northern Contra Costa County in the State Legislature.
“Anamarie’s experience in our local communities, especially her service on the Martinez City Council and Contra Costa County Board of Education, has prepared her to be an effective voice for us in the Legislature,” said Assemblymember Grayson. “I’m looking forward to partnering with her as we fight for Contra Costa’s share of state resources and policies that help working families get ahead.”
“Tim Grayson’s a voice of reason and purpose in the Legislature,” said Anamarie. “I’ll bring a similar attitude to making state policies: Results over rhetoric, progress over politics.
“I really appreciate Assemblymember Grayson’s support and look forward to working with him.”
Avila Farias was the second-place finisher in the March Primary election but the top vote-getter in the field of three Democrats and faces off against the Republican candidate in November’s election. Democratic voters outnumber Republicans 52%-19% in District 15’s registration numbers. If elected, she would be the first Latina to serve Contra Costa in the State Legislature.
She has an extensive record serving her community and setting state policy. She currently serves as a Trustee of the Contra Costa County Board of Education and has consistently pushed for improved public education in Contra Costa schools. She also served on the Martinez City Council from 2012-2016.
Avila Farias is running to represent California State Assembly District 15. The district encompasses Antioch, Pittsburg, Bay Point, Crockett, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Concord, Clayton and portions of Brentwood and unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County.
Allows felony charges and increases sentences for certain theft and drug crimes, including fentanyl
Sacramento, CA – California Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D. announced that an initiative became eligible for the November 5, 2024, General Election ballot on June 10, 2024.
In order to become eligible for the ballot, the initiative needed 546,651 valid petition signatures, which is equal to five percent of the total votes cast for governor in the November 2022 General Election.
A measure can become eligible via random sampling of petition signatures if the sampling projects that the number of valid signatures is greater than 110 percent of the required number. The initiative needed at least 601,317 projected valid signatures to become eligible by random sampling, and it has exceeded that threshold today.
On June 27, 2024, the Secretary of State will certify the initiative as qualified for the November 5, 2024, General Election ballot, unless it is withdrawn by the proponent prior to certification pursuant to Elections Code section 9604(b).
– Allows felony charges for possessing certain drugs, including fentanyl, and for thefts under $950—both currently chargeable only as misdemeanors—with two prior drug or two prior theft convictions, as applicable. Defendants who plead guilty to felony drug possession and complete treatment can have charges dismissed.
– Increases sentences for other specified drug and theft crimes.
– Increased prison sentences may reduce savings that currently fund mental health and drug treatment programs, K-12 schools, and crime victims; any remaining savings may be used for new felony treatment program.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased state criminal justice system costs potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually, primarily due to an increase in the state prison population. Some of these costs could be offset by reductions in state spending on local mental health and substance use services, truancy and dropout prevention, and victim services due to requirements in current law. Increased local criminal justice system costs potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually, primarily due to increased court-related workload and a net increase in the number of people in county jail and under county community supervision. (23-0017A1)
According to Ballotpedia.com, the political action committee supporting the measure, Californians to Reduce Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft, has raised over $7.2 million to support the effort. Of that amount $2.5 million was contributed by Walmart, $1.0 million from Home Depot, $500,000 from Target, $300,000 each from 7-Eleven and California Correctional Peace Officers Association Truth in American Government Fund.
The Secretary of State’s tracking number for this measure is 1959 and the Attorney General’s tracking number is 23-0017A1.
The proponent of the measure is Thomas W. Hiltachk of the Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk law firm. They can be reached at (916) 442-7757. The address for the proponent is 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 600, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Hosted by Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department at Antioch Senior Center, 415 W. 2nd Street, in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown.
Sonia Ledo proudly announced today she is the only State Assembly candidate in District 15 who is endorsed by four local police associations and the Deputy District Attorneys Association in Contra Costa County.
Ledo secured endorsements from the Walnut Creek Police Association, Concord Police Association, Martinez Police Officers Association and BART Police Officers’ Association. The Contra Costa County Deputy District Attorneys Association also endorsed the Assembly candidate for her commitment to address low-level crime and keep dangerous criminals off the streets.
“As representatives of the Martinez Police Officers Association, we wholeheartedly endorse Sonia Ledo for the California State Assembly seat in District 15,” said Martinez POA Board President Sean Angoco. “Sonia Ledo’s unwavering support for law enforcement is unparalleled. Sonia’s commitment to addressing urgent issues such as public safety is deeply rooted in her understanding of the critical role law enforcement plays in safeguarding our communities.
We believe Sonia Ledo’s unwavering support for law enforcement, coupled with her fairness, transparency, and strong work ethic, make her the ideal candidate to represent us in the State Assembly. We urge you to join us in supporting Sonia Ledo on November 5th for a safer and brighter future for California.”
Concord Police Association Board President Paul Van Diver referred to Ledo as “a true champion for public safety and community well-being”. He believes Ledo is “an obvious and compelling choice for endorsement because her consistent dedication to upholding important values only solidifies her as an exceptional candidate.”
Shane Reiss, President of BART Police Officers’ Association said, “BART POA endorses Sonia Ledo because she’s the only candidate in this race that opposes Prop. 47 and she believes in enforcing laws and keeping dangerous criminals off the streets.”
“I am honored to have earned the endorsements of so many local law enforcement organizations within Assembly District 15”, Ledo said. “It says they believe in me to go to work on day one in Sacramento and address the failed policies of the last decade. Such failed state policies have made us less safe in our communities while shopping, enjoying public spaces, and even in our own homes. We need new direction in Sacramento and that’s what I will bring”, Ledo said.
Her plan for improving public safety is a comprehensive four-part approach that includes a focus on police, prosecutors, judges and rehabilitation.
Ledo will work for:
Better recruitment, training and technology programs for our police departments;
Tougher mandates for prosecution of criminals by our district attorneys;
Stricter sentencing guidelines for our judges; and
Mandated rehabilitation and transition services for first-time offenders and those who have served their time.
The 15th Assembly District includes all of Antioch. For more information, contact Sonia Ledo at info@SoniaLedo.com call 925-567-9988 or visit SoniaLedo.com.
Conservative groups and LGBTQ+ rights supporters protest outside the Glendale Unified School District offices in Glendale, Calif., Tuesday, June 6, 2023. Several hundred people gathered in the parking lot of the district headquarters, split between those who support or oppose teaching about exposing youngsters to LGBTQ+ issues in schools. (Keith Birmingham/The Orange County Register via AP)
Protect Kids California’s effort would require schools to tell parents if their child signals gender changes, prevent biological males in girls’ sports and ban sterilization of children
Claim Attorney General’s ballot title and language change hurt signature gathering effort, lawsuit filed
“Our message is simple. Schools shouldn’t keep secrets from parents” – Protect Kids CA
By Allen D. Payton
California activists seeking to empower parents over their children’s decisions to identify as transgender failed to place a trifecta of restrictions on the November ballot known by the organizers as the Protect Kids of California Act of 2024. Attorney General Rob Bonta changed the ballot title to Restricts Rights of Transgender Youth. Initiative Statute and he changed the ballot language, as well which hampered the signature gathering efforts organizers claim.
According to Students First: Protect Kids California, the initiative will: (1) repeal the California law that permits students to compete in female’s sports and students to be in females’ locker rooms and bathrooms; (2) prohibit schools from deceiving parents about their student’s gender identity crisis and stop them from secretly transitioning a child; and (3) stop sex change operations and chemical castrations on minors.
The organization started late last fall to consolidate their three separate initiatives into one, and its signature-gathering efforts supported by 400,000 voters fell short of the 546,651 verifiable signatures that had to be collected within six months to make the presidential election ballot. The goal was to collect 800,000 signatures to be safe.
Organizers posted their complaint about Bonta’s ballot language changes on the group’s Facebook page on April 2. Initiative committee Executive Team member Nicole C Pearson wrote, “Every Californian, regardless of whether they agree with the initiative, should be concerned about an attorney general who ignores the law and uses his power to sabotage ballot initiatives. We plan to hold Bonta accountable for allowing his political agenda to get in the way of doing his job.”
The post included a link to an opinion on the Orange County Register website decrying the changes which reads, “As required by California law, proponents submitted the measure to Bonta to receive a neutral official title and summary to use in petitions. Bonta then returned the measure with a new title with a negative and misleading slant: the “Restricts Rights of Transgender Youth Initiative.” And he gave it a summary that was not only completely prejudicial and designed to mislead the electorate — it also contained lies.”
Then on Tuesday, May 28 the group issued a press release announcing the setback in a post on their Facebook page which reads, “We want to thank our tens of thousands of supporters and volunteers for this truly historic effort!Together, we collected over 400,000 signatures – an unprecedented achievement for a 100% grassroots effort. You really are amazing! While it is unfortunate we did not have enough signatures to make the 2024 ballot, we will build off this momentum to continue to fight for the principles set forth in the Protect Kids of California Act.”
The press release reads, “Protect Kids California announced on Tuesday, May 28, 2024, they collected an impressive 400,000 signatures for their proposed ballot measure but fell short of the 546,651 required to be collected within a 180-day timeframe to appear on the ballot.
Tens of thousands of volunteers gathered signatures from every county in California. The largest collection areas were Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Clara and Alameda Counties.
A completely grassroots effort, Protect Kids California raised close to $200,000 from over 1,200 donors. This equates to less than 50 cents per signature, a fraction of the amount standard ballot measure committees spend.
“While we are disappointed we didn’t meet the threshold to qualify for the ballot, we are encouraged by the amount of support from every sector of the state. We gathered more signatures for a statewide initiative than any all-volunteer effort in the history of California.” “We had severe headwinds from the beginning. California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a false and misleading Title & Summary for our initiative. That made our fundraising efforts more difficult. While we sued the Attorney General, a Superior Court Judge denied our motion in April. We plan to appeal the Superior Court Judge’s decision, at which time we will decide how to proceed in the future. If we had a little more time or a little more money, we would have easily qualified for the ballot.”
But battles over transgender issues will continue to burn bright in courts, school districts and the Legislature. Despite a setback, initiative organizers were buoyed by the 400,000 signatures that thousands of volunteers collected. They are confident that they will attract more donations and enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot two years from now — and find more support than leaders in heavily Democratic California assume exists.
“We’re very confident that voters would pass this if it gets to the ballot box,” said Jonathan Zachreson, a Roseville City school board member, co-founder of Protect Kids California and an official proponent of the initiative. “We gathered more signatures for a statewide initiative than any all-volunteer effort in the history of California.”
“We started around the holidays which didn’t help,” he added. “It was an all-volunteer effort. It usually takes about $7 million to get something on the ballot. We raised just under $200,000 which covered our costs. But we didn’t have money to pay signature-gatherers. We had around 25,000 to 30,000 volunteers. Our efforts really took off in the past two months. In the past few weeks, we were collecting so many signatures it was hard to keep up.”
The organizers proposed language for the three-pronged initiative read:
REQUIRES schools to notify parents regarding children’s mental health concerns identified in school settings, including gender identification issues.
PROTECTS girls’ competitive sports and school spaces to be for biological girls only.
PREVENTS the sterilization of children by prohibiting the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, mastectomies and genital surgeries for minors
Requires public and private schools and colleges to: restrict gender-segregated facilities like bathrooms to persons assigned that gender at birth; prohibit transgender female students (grades 7+) from participating in female sports. Repeals law allowing students to participate in activities and use facilities consistent with their gender identity.
Requires schools to notify parents whenever a student under 18 asks to be treated as a gender differing from school records without exception for student safety.
Prohibits gender-affirming health care for transgender patients under 18, even if parents consent or treatment is medically recommended.
The second issue has sparked a firestorm within the past year.
Last week, a Democratic legislator introduced a late-session bill that would preempt mandatory parental notification. Assembly Bill 1915, by Assemblymember Chris Ward, D-San Diego, would prohibit school districts from adopting a mandatory parental notification policy and bar them from punishing teachers who defy outing policies of LGBTQ+ students.
Last year, Assemblymember Bill Essayli, R-Corona, introduced a bill that would require parental notification, but AB 1314 died in the Assembly Education Committee without getting a hearing. Committee Chair Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, reasoned the bill would “potentially provide a forum for increasingly hateful rhetoric targeting LGBTQ youth.”
Ward cited surveys of transgender and gender nonconforming youths that found most felt unsafe or unsupported at home. In one national survey, 10% reported someone at home had been violent toward them because they were transgender, and 15% had run away or were kicked out of home because they were transgender.
The California Department of Education has issued guidance that warns that parental notification policies would violate students’ privacy rights and cites a California School Boards Association model policy that urges districts to protect students’ gender preferences.
But Zachreson argues that even if children have a right to gender privacy that excludes their parents, which he denies exists, students waive it through their actions. “At school, their teachers know about it, their peers and volunteers know about it, other kids’ parents know about it — and yet the child’s own parent doesn’t know that the school is actively participating in the social transition,” he said.
In some instances, he said, schools are actively taking steps to keep name changes and other forms of gender expression secret from the parents.
“What we’re saying is, no, you can’t do that. You have to involve the parents in those decisions,” he said.
Ward responds that many teachers don’t want to be coerced to interfere with students’ privacy and gender preferences. “Teachers have a job to do,” he said. “They are not the gender police.”
A half-dozen school districts with conservative boards, including Rocklin, Temecula Valley and Chino Valley, have adopted mandatory parental notification policies. Last fall, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued Chino Valley, arguing its policy is discriminatory. A state Superior Court judge in San Bernardino agreed that it violated the federal equal protection clause and granted a preliminary injunction. The case is on appeal.
Last July, U.S. District Court judge for Eastern California threw out a parent’s lawsuit against Chico Unified for its policy prohibiting disclosure of a student’s transgender status to their parent without the student’s explicit consent. The court ruled that it was appropriate for the district to allow students to disclose their gender identity to their parents “on their own terms.” Bonta and attorney generals from 15 states filed briefs supporting Chico Unified; the case, too, is on appeal.
While some teachers vow to sue if required to out transgender students to their parents, a federal judge in Southern California sided with two teachers who sued Escondido Union School District for violating their religious beliefs by requiring them to withhold information to parents about the gender transition of children. The judge issued a preliminary injunction against the district and then ordered the return of the suspended teachers to the classroom.
No California appellate court has issued a ruling on parent notification, and it will probably take the U.S. Supreme Court for a definitive decision. Essayli pledged to take a case there.
The National Picture
Seven states, all in the deeply red Midwest and South, have laws requiring identification of transgender students to their parents, while five, including Florida and Arizona, don’t require it but encourage districts to adopt ther own version., according to the Movement Advancement Project or MAP, an independent nonprofit.
Two dozen states, including Florida, Texas, and many Southern and Midwest states ban best-practice health care, medication and surgical care for transgender youth, and six states, including Florida, make it a felony to provide surgical care for transgender care. Proponents cite the decision in March by the English public health system to prohibit youths under 16 from beginning a medical gender transition to bolster the case for tighter restrictions in the United States.
California has taken the opposite position; it is one of 15 like-minded states and the District of Columbia with shield laws to protect access to transgender health care. They include New York, Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Massachusetts.
Twenty-five states have laws or regulations banning the participation of 13- to 17-year-old transgender youth in participating in sports consistent with their gender identification.
Not one solidly blue state is among those that have adopted the restrictions that Protect Kids California is calling for. But Zachreson and co-founder Erin Friday insist that contrary to the strong opposition in the Legislature, California voters would be open to their proposals. They point to favorable results in a survey of 1,000 California likely voters by the Republican-leaning, conservative pollster Spry Strategies last November.
59% said they would support and 29% would oppose legislation that “restricts people who are biologically male, but who now identify as women, from playing on girl’s sports teams and from sharing facilities that have traditionally been reserved for women.”
72% said they agreed, and 21% disagreed that “parents should be notified if their child identifies as transgender in school.”
21% said they agreed, and 64% disagreed that “children who say they identify as transgender should be allowed to undergo surgeries to try to change them to the opposite sex or take off-label medications and hormones.”
The voters surveyed were geographically representative and reflective of party affiliation, but not demographically, The respondents were mostly white and over 60, and, in a progressive state, were divided roughly evenly among conservatives, moderates and liberals.
Two Versions of Protecting Children
Both sides in this divisive cultural issue say they’re motivated to protect children. One side says it’s protecting transgender children to live as they are, without bias and prejudice that contribute to despair and suicidal thoughts. The other side says it’s protecting kids from coercion to explore who they aren’t, from gender confusion, and exposure to values at odds with their family’s.
Zachreson and Friday wanted to title their initiative “Protect Kids of California Act of 2024.” But Bonta, whose office reviews initiatives’ titles and summaries, chose instead “Restrict Rights of Transgender Youth. Initiative Statute.” Zachreson and Friday, an attorney, appealed the decision, but a Superior Court Judge in Sacramento upheld Bonta’s wording, which he said was accurate, not misleading or prejudicial.
“The ballot title was obviously biased and the summary was intentionally meant to deceive voters and hampered our efforts to get this on the ballot this year,” Zachreson continued. “The statutory requirement is to be impartial and factual. He did the opposite. He was biased and he had descriptions that were false. Bonta claimed there were no exceptions for student safety when notifying parents. But that’s not correct. It’s already in the law.”
Zachreson is appealing again. A more objective title and summary would make a huge difference, he said, by attracting financial backing to hire signature collectors and the support and resources of the California Republican Party, which declined to endorse the initiative. That was a strategic mistake in an election year when turnout will be critical.
“The people who support the initiative are passionate about it,” he said.
The organizers may have to start over but a lawsuit about the biased title and summary was filed asking for a change in the language, to use the signatures already gathered and to grant an extension.
“The appeal won’t be heard until after the November election,” Zachreson shared.
Effort for November 2026 Ballot Continues
If a judge rules in their favor it will make it easier for the group to complete the signature gathering to qualify for the next General Election ballot which will be in November 2026.
Political observer Dan Schnur, who teaches political communications at USC, UC Berkeley and Pepperdine University, agreed that the gender debate could have motivated Republicans and swing voters to go to the polls.
“There’s no question that the Attorney General’s ballot language had a devastating effect on the initiative’s supporters and it could have almost as much of an impact on Republican congressional candidates this fall,” he said.
“Our message is simple. Schools shouldn’t keep secrets from parents; we should protect girls’ sports and private spaces at school; and we should protect kids from unproven, life-altering and often sterilizing medical procedures. We vow to continue fighting for these principles,” the group’s May 28th press release concluded.
