POLL: Support For Death Penalty Hits New Low In California

California Governor Gavin Newsom made headlines a few weeks ago when he announced a moratorium on the death penalty in the state along with the dismantling of the death chamber in San Quentin. Since California voters have rejected ballot measures twice in the last decade (and as recently as November 2016) to end the state's death penalty the media characterized the move as "thwarting" the will of the populace. However, new polling shows that Gov. Newsom may be more in line with public opinion in California than expected. According to the Public Policy Institute of California's March 2019 poll, voters approve of mandatory life without parole to the death penalty by a 58% to 38% margin, and when you expand to include all Californians (not just voters) support for the death penalty falls to 31%. The only  demographic group where support for the death penalty has increased is Republicans, with support at 64% while Democrats are at 21% and Independents at 36%. Thank Zeus we have so few Republicans in Deep Blue California their share of the electorate is low and falling and their impact on public policy is negligible!

Hat/tip to CalMatters

GODLESS WEDNESDAY: Mormons Trying To Influence Ballot Measures in Western States (AZ,CO,CA,NV)

The Mormon Church notoriously (and somewhat disastrously) got involved with a California ballot measure in 2008 called Proposition 8 that purported to amend the United States California Constitution to ban same-sex marriage that was eventually struck down in a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision on June 26, 2013. has decided that it didn't learn its lesson 8 years ago and is getting involved in opposing a series of ballot measures involving social issues in various West Coast states.

The Deseret News reports:

The LDS Church's First Presidency is asking the faith's members in four western states to oppose bills that would legalize doctor-assisted suicide and recreational marijuana use.
Church President Thomas S. Monson and his counselors sent a letter Wednesday to Mormons in Colorado, where Proposition 106 would legalize physician-assisted suicide. 

"We urge church members to let their voices be heard in opposition to measures that would legalize physician-assisted suicide," said the letter signed by President Monson, President Henry B. Eyring and President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, who make up the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

They sent a similar letter Wednesday to Mormons in Arizona, California and Nevada about marijuana legislation.
"We urge church members to let their voices be heard in opposition to the legalization of recreational marijuana use," the letter said.

The Mormon Church does not get involved in political issues very often (which is one reason their involvement in the Proposition 8 fight over same-sex marriage was so striking) so it is noteworthy that they are urging their adherents in California, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada to follow the Church's leadership instead of voting their conscience in these particular matters. It's also interesting that the LDS Church did not weigh in on Proposition 62 (abolish death penalty) and Proposition 66 (maintain death penalty) in California.

QUEER QUOTE: Anti-Trans Initiative Fails To Quality For CA 2016 Ballot

Good news! Previously we had reported that some haters had been circulating petitions in California to try to literally regulate the access to urination facilities of transgender people with their so-called "Privacy for All" act.

Today comes news that this ballot measure has failed to qualify for the 2016 ballot! The Washngton Blade reports

A social conservative group seeking to place an anti-transgender initiative on the 2016 California ballot announced Monday it failed to collect enough signatures by the deadline to make it happen. 

The initiative, dubbed the “Personal Privacy Protection Act,” sought to prohibit transgender people from using restrooms in government buildings consistent with their gender identity and would have allowed businesses to do the same. 

The anti-trans coalition, known as Privacy for All, needed to submit 365,880 signatures by Monday to qualify the measure for the ballot. Nowhere in the organization’s statement does it say how many signatures it did collect. 

The coalition is supported by the Sacramento-based Pacific Justice Institute and other groups in California that passed Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage in the state.

Today's Queer Quote is from Kris Hayashi, the executive director of the Transgender Law Center:

"This initiative was a poorly veiled attack on transgender people that sought to undermine that freedom and single out for harassment anyone who doesn’t meet stereotypes of what it looks like to be male or female. Today Californians have made clear these types of discriminatory attacks on transgender people and our families, communities, and neighborhoods have no place in our state."

This is the same group that was behind Proposition 8 and also tried to repeal the Student Success and Opportunity Act (AB 1266) which makes it clear that students can participate in all student activities regardless of their gender identity or gender expression. Because they have lost so dramatically on the question of marriage equality, these heterosexual supremacists have taken to targeting the most vulnerable group in the LGBT coalition: the transgender community.

Hat/tip to Joe My God

CA Anti-Transgender Bathroom Initiative Is Collecting Signatures Now

There is a new threat to LGBT people on the horizon in California. The same people who opposed marriage equality and got their butts kicked so thoroughly by the forces of equality and progress have switched their focus to trying to regulate where gender non-conforming people can pee!

They have filed a ballot measure and are currently have until November 20, 2015 to collect roughly 500,000 signatures. Here is the attorney's general's summary of the proposed initiative:

Initiative 15-0019
LIMITS ON USE OF FACILITIES IN GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS AND BUSINESSES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.  
Prohibits individuals from using facilities in government buildings except in accordance with their sex as determined at birth, through medical examination, or court judgment recognizing a change of gender. Creates legal damages claim of at least $4,000 against a government entity or person that violates the provision. Allows businesses to prohibit employees or patrons, including transgender people, from using facilities except in accordance with their sex as determined at birth, through medical examination, or court judgment. Exempts businesses from criminal and civil liability for implementing such a prohibition. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increase in state court costs related to civil claims, not likely to exceed a few tens of millions of dollars annually. Unknown increase in state and local government costs related to actions taken to avoid, litigate, or remedy civil claims filed for violating the measure. Potential significant loss of federal funds. (15-0019.)

If you see anyone asking you to sign such a measure, just say no!

SATURDAY POLITICS: Texas Sup Ct Tells Houston "Repeal Equal Rights Measure Or Place On Ballot"

The Texas Supreme Court issued a ruling yesterday handing opponents of Houston's Equal Rights ordinance (HERO) a victory when it said that the City Council must decide by August 24th to either repeal the measure or place it before voters for a vote on the November 2015 municipal ballot. The Houston City Council enacted HERO last summer with openly lesbian Mayor Annise Parker's strong support. This is a shocking ruling because earlier the religious extremists who opposed HERO had turned in double the number of signatures needed to pace the measure on the ballot but more than half of those petitions were deemed invalid by the City Attorney. However the City Secretary had certified that there were enough signatures and it is this certification that the Texas Supreme Court has said must be obeyed. The court suspended the non-discrimination ordinance, and gave the city counvil 30 days to decide to repeal the ordinance or place it before voters.

In response to the Republican-dominated state high court ruling, Mayor Parker issued a statement which said:

"Obviously, I am disappointed and believe the court is in error with this eleventh hour ruling in a case that had already been decided by a judge and jury of citizens. Nonetheless, we will proceed with the steps necessary for City Council to consider the issue. At the same time, we are consulting with our outside counsel on any possible available legal actions. Houston’s Equal Rights Ordinance is similar to measures passed by every other major city in the country and by most local corporations. No matter the color of your skin, your age, gender, physical limitations, or sexual orientation, every Houstonian deserves the right to be treated equally. To do otherwise, hurts Houston’s well-known image as a city that is tolerant, accepting, inclusive and embracing of its diversity. Our citizens fully support and understand this and I have never been afraid to take it to the voters. We will win!"

Of course t's always a bad idea to be forced to vote on the civil rights of other people but if that's what the haters want, we will be ready!

QUEER QUOTE: Judge Rules "Sodomite Suppression Act" Patently Unconstitutional

Well, well! Score one for common sense. A violently homophobic proposed California ballot measure known as the "Sodomite Suppression Act" has been found unconstitutional by a Superior Court judge so that Attorney General Kamala Harris does not have to process it for circulation before voters. The judge's order is the source for today's QUEER QUOTE:

1. The proposed initiative titled the "Sodomite Suppression Act" (the "Act") is patently unconstitutional on its face;
2. Any preparation and official issuance of a circulating title and summary for the Act by the Attorney General would be inappropriate, waste public resources, generate unnecessary divisions among the public and tend to mislead the electorate; and
3. The Attorney General is relieved of any obligation to issue a title and summary for the Act.

Just in time for LGBT Pride month!

Ireland Enacts Marriage Equality As Amendment Passes With Over 60% #VoteYes

As expected, Ireland became the first country in the world to legalize marriage equality by a popular vote when the country passed a constitutional amendment by a huge margin of 62%-38% buoyed by record high turnout of over 60 of the voting population.

Freedom To Marry's Evan Wolfson said:

With a resounding vote in favor, Ireland now becomes the first country in the world to pass the freedom to marry by popular referendum, as well as the 21st nation and the 10th predominantly Catholic country in which same-sex couples can marry. Our Irish colleagues at Yes Equality ran a magnificent campaign and Freedom to Marry is proud to have shared what we’ve learned in our own campaign here in the US. The global momentum for the freedom to marry reflects and reinforces the progress we are making here in the United States – and we look now to the Supreme Court to bring our country to national resolution, following Ireland’s good example.

Ireland is now the 21st country where same-sex couples have an equal right to marry.

Eighteen countries have approved the freedom to marry for same-sex couples nationwide (Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, France, Brazil, Uruguay, New Zealand, Britain, Luxembourg, Finland and now Ireland), while two others have regional or court-directed provisions enabling same-sex couples to share in the freedom to marry (Mexico and the United States). In Slovenia, Parliament approved a marriage bill in March 2015 and is headed to the president's desk.

Woo hoo!

Ireland Poised To Enact Marriage Equality By Popular Ballot This Week

Ireland is poised to become the first country in the world to enact marriage equality by popular vote if a constitutional amendment is approved by voters on Friday May 22.

The text of the measure is as follows:

“Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”

Polls have shown a large lead for the "Yes" side which would lead to a victory for marriage equality. All major parties have endorsed the Yes position and the coalition said that they would not be surprised to see a result of 60% in support of marriage.

This is an astonishing possibility in a country that is 85% Catholic and where abortion is still illegal and divorce was legalized only two decades ago.

Good luck, Ireland!

Haters Propose Initiative To Regulate Where Gender Non-Conforming People Can Pee

Now that heterosexual supremacists and religious fundamentalists have realized they have lost the culture war completely on the question of marriage equality they are moving on to other issues, like "religious freedom" and protecting people who believe they have a constitutional right to deny services and public accommodations to other people due to their "sincerely held beliefs" about marriage. Oh and proposing ballot measures to require executions of homosexuals.

One of these issues the homophobic conservative right is pivoting to is about gender-nonconforming people and bathrooms. You think LGBT people are interested in the genitals of other people? We are nowhere as interested as the Pacific Justice Institute, which is so obsessed with the issue they want to have a multi-million dollar ballot campaign in the heat of a presidential campaign to discuss the politics and biology of sex and gender. What could go wrong, right?

They have filed the "Personal Privacy Protection Act" with the California Attorney General which would amend the California code to include the language:

 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person shall use facilities in accordance with their biological sex in all government buildings. 

So, yes, basically they want to make sure that only people with the "right" plumbing get to pee in the right places. Why do they care? Because they want to demonize people they do not like as predators.
This issue of gender-neutral bathrooms enrages (and befuddles) me because isn't it everyone's experience at home that all bathrooms can be used by all people of any gender? Why shouldn't that be the case in public? Why shouldn't ALL bathrooms be private? The idea of "group" bathrooms (i.e. urinals) is the atavistic notion that should be abolished, not the idea that people who and gender-nonconforming or transgender have to get the permission of the state to determine which bathroom to use in a public bathroom. That is insanity. They are convinced that sex is a binary despite all evidence to the contrary that not only is SEX not binary, neither is GENDER. However, they want to put into state law a definition of biological sex that reads:

 Biological sex means the biological condition of being male or female as determined at or near the time of birth or through medical examination or as modified by Health & Safety Code § 103425. 

But what happens if someone's sex is indeterminate (intersexuals) or someone's sex NOW is different from what their sex was determined to be "at or near the time of birth"? I guess no public bathroom for you, if the PPPA is passed by California voters.

One of the proponents of the measure named Kevin Snider is quoted in the Los Angeles Times claims that people who don't believe in the "biological reality of two sexes" are "science deniers." I would definitely put myself in the camp of many people who think there may be atleast five sexes! I think Mr. Snider needs to read up on the latest scientific research on the nature of sex and gender:

Sex can be much more complicated than it at first seems. According to the simple scenario, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome is what counts: with it, you are male, and without it, you are female. But doctors have long known that some people straddle the boundary — their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another. Parents of children with these kinds of conditions — known as intersex conditions, or differences or disorders of sex development (DSDs) — often face difficult decisions about whether to bring up their child as a boy or a girl. Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of DSD.

But, sure, let's have a conversation about which side is denying science and data. Spoiler alert, it is not going to be the group which thinks that sexual orientation can be changed by "therapy."

QUEER QUOTE: CA Proposed Ballot Measure Would Authorize Death Penalty For "Sodomites"

Wow. Now this is some pretty crazy stuff, even for heterosexual supremacists. A religious zealot has filed a proposed ballot measure called the "Sodomite Suppression Act" with the Attorney General of California that says "any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purpose of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or any other convenient method."

Matt McLaughlin filed the measure and paid the $200 fee required to get the ballot measure in the system. He then has to collect the signatures of 5% of the votes cast for Governor in November 2014. Because turnout was so low, the magic number is a mere 366,000 valid signatures to qualify an initiative statute for the statewide general ballot. I suspect we will see quite a lot of crackpot ballot measures filed seeking to make the November 2016 ballot.

Hat/tip to Joe Jervis

SATURDAY POLITICS: MadProfessah Urges NO Vote On *Both* Los Angeles Charter Amendments

The 2015 municipal primary elections in the City and County of Los Angeles are Tuesday March 3rd and yours truly has been active in the opposition to two duplicitous charter amendments that are on the ballot. The measures' supporters claim that they are intended to increase voter turnout by aligning Los Angeles' city elections with the state and presidential elections by moving the March 2021 primary election to June 2020 and the May 2021 general election to November 2020.  All future Los Angeles elections would be held every two years after that. There are many reasons why voters should reject this attempt to do lasting harm to our local democratic process and vote no on Charter Amendments 1 and 2.

The immediate effect would be to make Los Angeles the largest municipality in the country to have their local elections held in the context of the much more significant statewide elections held in even years. Oh, and for good measure they would give all officials elected in 2015 or 2017 terms of office that last five-and-a-half years instead of four year terms!

Even though the Los Angeles Times half-heartedly recommended a yes vote on these charter amendments, they highlighted the MULTIPLE problematic aspects of the measures:

But although we believe in the idea, we're disappointed in the execution. The City Council chose to align mayoral and citywide elections with gubernatorial elections starting in 2022, and to match the lower-impact council races with the presidential elections starting in 2020. 
If officials wanted the highest possible turnout for the highest-impact elections, they would have paired mayoral elections with presidential elections, which typically draw 70% to 80% turnout in the November runoffs. Also, there are more local races in a mayoral election year, so combining those ballots with the presidential would have meant higher turnout for a greater number of local races. 

 What's more, the city's March mayoral primaries tend to draw more voters than June primaries in gubernatorial years. Since 70% of city races are decided in the primary, some people worry that the city might not see a big boost in turnout by moving the mayoral race to the gubernatorial year. To switch to the new election cycles in 2020 and 2022, the City Council had two choices: either hold special elections in 2019 and 2021 for a shorter-than-usual 18-month term or lengthen the terms of city officials elected this year and in 2017 by 18 months, giving them a one-time, extra-long 51/2-year term. Not surprisingly, the officials chose the second path.  

As a result, voters won't know if they're voting in new City Council members for four years or 51/2 years — and won't find out until they learn whether the amendments have passed. There is also concern that local elections will be overshadowed by the national and state races. Local candidates will appear at the end of a long ballot that could include dozens of high-profile races. Campaigning may become more difficult and expensive as local candidates fight for voter attention and limited airtime. 

 Finally, moving the election won't address the underlying causes of low turnout — the civic malaise that prevents so many Angelenos from becoming engaged in the democratic process and leaves them feeling that local elections don't matter. Charter Amendments 1 and 2 treat a symptom of the disease, but not the disease. It is essential to continue to seek ways to cure that through campaign finance reform, civics education and diverse, engaging political candidates.

And this is what the supporters of the measure say about it to urge you to vote for it! Well, I disagree. We Angelenos deserve better. VOTE NO ON CHARTER AMENDMENTS 1 and 2!

SATURDAY POLITICS: 10 Weeks Until Los Angeles City Elections

Council President Herb Wesson has a plan to control
Los Angeles city politics until 2020

in just ten weeks, on March 3, 2015 Los Angeles voters will go to the polls and decide who will represent them in seven even-numbered city council districts. In two of those districts (#8 and #4) there is no incumbent. However, even more important than City Council, School Board and Community College Board of Trustees races that will be decided is the two Charter Amendments which could change Los Angeles City politics forever.

Voters will be asked whether they want to change the dates of municipal elections to align them with county, state and federal elections, moving them from the current odd years to even years, and moving the primary from March to June and the general election from May to November.

On the face of it, this sounds like a good idea because turnout in municipal elections, which are often at seemingly bizarre times of the year, has been declining precipitously and has recently reached embarrassingly low levels. However, in order to effect the change, the result will be that Councilmembers elected in 2015 and 2017 will get 5½ year terms instead of the typical four year terms. Thus, if voters approve Charter Amendment One and Two current City Council President (if he gets re-elected in March) would be able to serve as City Council president until atleast June 2020!
I'm sure it's a complete coincidence that it is precisely that date when the primary election for the next Board of Supervisors seat currently occupied by Mark Ridley-Thomas (and which is considered the "Black" seat on the 5-member board) would be scheduled. Wesson is currently 63 years old and would be a formidable candidate to join the powerful body. Interestingly, the only member of the 15 Los Angeles City Council to vote against putting the Charter Amendments before voters was Bernard Parks (who unsuccessfully ran against Ridley-Thomas for that Supervisorial seat 2008 and was formerly the Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department).

One bonus of the Charter Member change would be that whoever is elected in 2017 as Mayor would also get to serve a 5½ year term, which would be a great boon for incumbent Mayor Eric Garcetti. Another troubling problem with the proposed charter change to even-year elections is that adding our local elections to the end of a very long federal, state and county ballot may actually reduce the number of people who vote on these races due to "ballot drop-off"

Factoring in the potential drop-off in votes on city races stuck at the end of a long even-year ballot, city races might have attracted just 23 percent of eligible voters last month. That’s because in that election in Los Angeles County, nearly 3 in 10 people who voted for a candidate for governor did not vote for the last judicial race on the same ballot. Calculating that drop-off from 31 percent turnout yields about 23 percent turnout, the same as voted in the 2013 general election for city offices. Even the numerical case for the scheme to change elections for our city and school board officials breaks down under scrutiny based on recent evidence. 

The charter amendments to change election dates are phony “reform.” Real improvements to city voting would consider moving the city election to match the months of even-year elections, to expand early voting and mail balloting, and to hold elections on a Saturday and Sunday, when people are more easily able to vote.

There are less than ten weeks to go  before Los Angeles voters will decide the very nature of municipal democracy but there is very little discussion going on about this critical public policy change. I hope that changes soon!

Local LGBT Ordinance Repealed By Fayetteville, AR Voters

Hmmm, now that the fight over marriage appears to be coming to a close there is increased focus on other aspects of the gay rights agenda that most people thought had been settled a long time ago: should LGBT people have equal access to public goods and services, housing, employment, credit, et cetera? Simply said, are gay rights civil rights? (And by "gay" here I mean "LGBT.")

In many states there are no state laws against discriminating against individuals based on sexual orientation or gender identity. There is no federal law banning discrimination in these areas either, so many activists have started enacting local ordinances (like the one enacted in Houston earlier this year) to protect LGBT individuals from rank discrimination based on characteristics that have nothing to do with their ability to do a job, rent an apartment or access services from local businesses or governments.

However, there are many people who not only feel that their religious beliefs about LGBT people should be informative (if not determinative) of public policy in this area but also that the Government is abridging their religious beliefs by enforcing equal treatment under the law based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity. These people are the same people who thought that it was a brilliant idea to put the marriage rights of their fellow citizens up for a vote and now want to do the same thing with basic civil rights as well.

Anyway, this week there was another skirmish in the upcoming kulturkampf on this issue when a local ordinance in Fayetteville, Arkansas was repealed just months after it was enacted, thanks primarily to political activity by conservative and religious leaders.

The vote was surprisingly close (less than 500 votes out of 14,000 cast) but the bad guys won. Keep Fayetteville Fair responded:

Fayetteville voters decided to repeal a city wide anti-discrimination ordinance in a special election Tuesday night. Keep Fayetteville Fair and its supporters have campaigned the past several months, encouraging a vote against the repeal of the ordinance. 

More than 7,000 people voted against the repeal and stood behind the idea that employees should be judged on their merits nothing more, nothing less. The ordinance would have protected Fayetteville residents from being fired from their job, denied housing, or kicked out of a restaurant simply because of their race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. 

“We have a very strong local volunteer and support team who worked hard to try to keep this ordinance in place,” Anne-Garland Berry, campaign manager said. “Fayetteville is a city filled with inclusive, accepting citizens. Unfortunately, the repeal of this ordinance tells our visitors that we do not treat everyone with respect and only allocate freedoms to certain groups of people.” 

The campaign would like to thank all its supporters and volunteers who put in countless hours to keep our city fair. Including others who stood up for fairness, Rep. Greg Leding, Alderman Matthew Petty and Mayor Lioneld Jordan.

Hat/tip to Max Brantley

GODLESS WEDNESDAY: Mississippi Heritage Amendment Proposed To Declare Christianity "Principal Religion"

Whoa! Mississippi may be considering a state constitutional amendment in 2016 that would, among other things, declare "Christianity" the "principal" religion of the state, and insert the words "Holy Bible" into the founding document of the Magnolia State. The Magnolia State Heritage Amendment reads, in part:

The State of Mississippi hereby acknowledges the fact of her identity as a principally Christian and quintessentially Southern state, in terms of the majority of her population, character, culture, history, and heritage, from 1817 to the present; accordingly, the Holy Bible is acknowledged as a foremost source of her founding principles, inspiration, and virtues; and, accordingly, prayer is acknowledged as a respected, meaningful, and valuable custom of her citizens. The acknowledgments hereby secured shall not be construed to transgress either the national or the state Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

In case you think  I am making this up, here is the official summary of the amendment from the Mississippi Secretary of State's office:

Initiative #46 would amend the Constitution to restrict or define Mississippi’s heritage in the following areas: religion, official language, state flag, nickname, song, motto and state university mascots. Further, the initiative would prevent the consolidation of Alcorn State University, Delta State University, Jackson State University, Mississippi University for Women, and Mississippi Valley State University, designate the month of April “Confederate Heritage Month,” and reinstate Mississippi’s Constitutional boundaries.

I guess Mississippi does not have the legal requirement that ballot measures restrict themselves to dealing with one topic! Oh, and it also insists that the state government can not offer government services in any other language than English. Is "y'all" English? I guess well find out if the measure qualifies for the ballot and voters get to see the measure in November 2016.

SCOTUS Upholds Michigan's Affirmative Action Ban 6-2, Sotomayor Vociferously Dissents

On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court issued a curious 6-2 ruling upholding the constitutionality of a Michigan ballot measure which precludes the use of "race-based preferences" in public education. The majority opinion by Anthony Kennedy went out of its way to say that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of race-based affirmative action policies but on whether voters had the power to ban affirmative action policies.

New York Times reports:

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s controlling opinion for three justices took pains to say that the decision was a modest one. 

“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved,” he wrote, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. “It is about who may resolve it. There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters.” 

His announcement of the decision from the bench was businesslike. Then Justice Sotomayor summarized her dissent, an unusual move signaling deep displeasure. She said the initiative put minorities to a burden not faced by other college applicants and so violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause. 

“The Constitution does not protect racial minorities from political defeat,” she wrote. “But neither does it give the majority free rein to erect selective barriers against racial minorities.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined the dissent. Justice Sotomayor seemed to mock one of Chief Justice Roberts’s most memorable lines. In a 2007 decision that limited the use of race in public school systems, he wrote, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” 

Justice Sotomayor recast the line. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race,” she wrote, “is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.”

The result is significant for California, because the Golden State is one of 7 where voters have passed ballot measures banning affirmative action based on race (or gender) in public education. California's measure is called Proposition 209 and an attempt to place a repeal on the November 2014 ballot was abandoned earlier this year after Asian constituents expressed their displeasure with the idea of allowing UCLA and UC Berkeley to be allowed to take race into account when deciding who gets admitted to California's top state universities.

This is not surprising, because figures that came out this week show that Asians are a plurality (36.2%) of all admitted students from California to the University of California, with Latinos (28.8%) surpassing Whites (26.8) for the first time this year. Black students made up a paltry 4.2% of the total number of admitted California students.

SCOTUS blog reports on how strongly Justice Sonia Sotomayor attempted to convince her colleagues that what they were doing in allowing the majority to ban policies intended to help minorities was wrong:

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who recited orally from the bench a lengthy version of her dissenting opinion, said the ruling would make it much harder for racial minorities to defend affirmative action programs.  What had happened in Michigan, she protested, was “the last chapter of discrimination” — changing “the basic rules of the political process in that state in a manner that uniquely disadvantaged racial minorities.” 

The Sotomayor opinion, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, ran to fifty-eight pages – surpassing by more than three times the length of the lead opinion by Justice Kennedy and even exceeding the forty-four pages that all of her colleagues had written.

Viva Sonia!

Opponents Of CA Trans Student Bill File Suit To Get On 2014 Ballot

Hmmm, some people just don't seem to want to follow the rules. After filing fewer signatures than they had initially claimed they would have and failing to qualify their anti-LGBT ballot measure by nearly 20,000 signatures, the organization Privacy For All is now suing the Secretary of State to have their measure qualified anyway.

A group seeking to overturn California’s law allowing transgender students access to programs and facilities based on the gender they identify as, rather than the sex they were born into, is continuing the fight by serving Secretary of State Debra Bowen and other officials, the group announced Tuesday. 

“We have served the Secretary of State with another legal action asking her to qualify the referendum and we have served county officials across the state with a demand for the documents to prove the abuse of discretion in rejecting more than 131,000 signatures,” Gina Gleason, director of faith and public policy at Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, wrote in a press release issued Tuesday morning. 

Gleason is one of the proponents listed on a proposed referendum that would repeal Assembly Bill 1266, which was signed into law last September by Gov. Jerry Brown, and took effect on Jan. 1. 

Opponents say the law will allow curious teens to ogle members of the opposite sex while at their most vulnerable, and for male students to game the system by dominating female sports teams. But officials in school districts where such policies have already been in effect — including Los Angeles and San Francisco unified school districts — have said those issues haven’t emerged in practice.

I'm glad the article notes that Los Angeles and San Francisco already have the transgender-inclusive policies of AB 1266 in effect regardless of the legislation, and would continue to have them regardless of whether a ballot measure repealed AB 1266.  In addition, New York City just issued guidelines recently about how it is adopting its transgender-inclusive policies in schools.

But this is not about "privacy" and "safety" for students. This is about a group that has specific ideas about the way that all people should display and conduct their gender identity, in a way that only conforms to a heterosexist ideal. Since they know they are losing badly in the kulturkampf on marriage equality and civil rights based on sexual orientation they are trying to make progress on an issue which has less salience with the public: transgender issues.

Hopefully Attorney General Kamala Harris will defend the state of California and point out that 504, 760 valid signatures means 504, 760 valid signatures, not 484,484!

CA State Senate Abandons Attempt To Restore Race-Conscious College Admissions

Bad news today out of the Democratic state senate, where a state constitutional amendment that would place a partial repeal of Proposition 209 on the November 2014 ballot has been tabled. Proposition 209 passed in 1996 and banned the use of race, ethnicity or gender in public education, public contracts or public employment. The state senate had passed SCA 5 by a vote of 27 to 9 on January 30, 2014.

Speaker John Perez (and State Controller candidate) announced today that the Assembly would not consider the measure. According to the San Jose Mercury-News Asian-American state senators switched from support to opposition due to pressure from the community.

Last week, saying they had received thousands of calls and emails from constituents, senators Leland Yee, D-San Francisco; Ted Lieu, D-Torrance; and Carol Liu, D-La Cañada/Flintridge asked Assembly Speaker John Perez to stop the bill. 

"As lifelong advocates for the Asian-American and other communities, we would never support a policy that we believed would negatively impact our children," they wrote in a letter to Perez. 

In 1996, California became the first state to outlaw affirmative action in public university admissions and state hiring, a policy that took effect in 1998. The amendment would have allowed voters to lift that ban, either this fall or in 2016. 

Hernandez and others have said that misinformation about what affirmative action would mean -- such as racial quotas for new freshmen -- spread quickly, stoking parents' fears about their children's chances of getting into UC, the state's public research university system. 

Using racial quotas in admissions would be unconstitutional; recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have strictly limited consideration of race in public university admissions. UC officials last week said any suggestion of quotas is irresponsible: "We have never done that, and we never would," said Nina Robinson, UC's associate president and chief policy adviser.

 Hopefully the legislature will realize that it is important to be able to use race as a factor in college admissions.

Bigots Fail To Qualify CA Referendum On Transgender Student Rights Law!

As I predicted in December, the Secretary of State today confirmed that religious extremists and heterosexual supremacists failed to submit enough valid signatures to force a referendum on the School Success and Opportunity Act (AB 1266). In order to suspend the law and force a vote on the measure in November 2014, the opponents of the measure had claimed they had enough signatures to force a vote but they submitted 619, 387 signatures and a 3% spot check showed that they were above 95% of the needed total which triggered a review of every single signature. In the end, though, the Secretary of State determined that only 487,484 were deemed valid and 504,760 were needed. That's a deficit of 17,276 or 3.4% of the total needed to qualify the measure.

They got 96.6% of the way to their total, which is scary enough. But close is not good enough!
 This is great news for transgender and cisgender students in all California schools.

The haters could still try and file a ballot measure to repeal the law or a constitutional amendment to prevent the legislature from enacting such a measure in the future.

Equality California celebrates with a press release:

Attempt to Repeal the School Success and Opportunity Act Fails

(San Francisco) Today, the effort to repeal the School Success and Opportunity Act — California’s new law ensuring that all children have opportunities to do well in school — failed to qualify for the ballot.

The law — also known as Assembly Bill 1266 — went into effect on January 1, ensuring that schools have the guidance they need to make sure all students, including those who are transgender, have the opportunity to do well in school and graduate.
The law is modeled after policies and practices that are already working well in several schools, and gives important guidance to educators so they can work with students and families on a case-by-case basis.

Oakland’s Redwood Heights School is among the California schools with policies in place that provide transgender young people with fair chances. Like other schools with similar policies across the state, the policy has been successful since it was established five years ago.

“We want our students to know that when they walk onto this campus, they are welcomed for who they are,” said Redwood Heights Principal Sara Stone. “Every educator I know went into the education field because they truly care about young people and making sure they have everything they need to do well in school.”

The law helps students like Zoey, a 12-year-old transgender girl from the Los Angeles area who transferred out of her school after administrators there refused to acknowledge her as a girl or allow her to use the girls’ restroom. Her mom, Ofelia Barba, says that the law makes it easier for her daughter to go to school and be herself.

“I love my daughter and want the same things for her that other parents want for their children,” Barba said. “I want what’s best for her, for her to be happy, and for her to be able to do well in school. No one wants to see any kid singled out and excluded from school because of who they are.”

The Support All Students campaign comprises a broad coalition of nearly 100 state and national organizations supporting the new law. The coalition includes Equality California, Transgender Law Center, National Center for Lesbian Rights, ACLU of California, Gay-Straight Alliance Network, L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, Gender Spectrum, LGBT organizations, racial justice organizations, statewide teacher and parent organizations, and others committed to ensuring that all kids have the opportunity to do well in school and graduate.

Said Transgender Law Center Executive Director and Campaign Chair Masen Davis: “This law gives schools the guidelines and flexibility to create an environment where all kids have the opportunity to learn. We need to focus on creating an environment where every student is able to do well and graduate. This law is about doing what’s best for all students — that’s why it’s supported by school boards, teachers, and the PTA.”

To learn more about the School Success and Opportunity Act and the Support All Students campaign, visit www.SupportAllStudents.org.

Great news!

POLL: Potential Oregon Ballot Measure On Marriage Equality Leads 55-41

An internal poll conducted by Anzalone Liszt Grove for Oregon United for Marriage indicates that support for marriage equality in the Beaver state has increased to a healthy 14-point margin, 55-41.
This is interesting because although the coalition has collected enough signatures to put the question before voters in November 2014, they are waiting to see what a federal judge does with a pending federal lawsuit challenging Oregon's constitutional ban on marriage (which the state's attorney general claims will not survive any standard of legal review) before deciding whether to submit them or not.

Indiana Anti-Gay Marriage Measure Blocked From 2014 Ballot!

In a quite surprising result, the Indiana Senate voted to advance a version of an anti-gay constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that means the measure will not appear on the November 2014 ballot. What happened was that both houses of the legislature have passed in this session a version of the proposed ballot language that is different from the language previously passed so that this newer version has to pass through another legislative session before it can be sent to the 2016 ballot. The difference in the language removed the "second sentence" that would have banned any kind of legal recognition for same-sex couples in Indiana, including domestic partnerships.

The deeply flawed second sentence would have permanently prohibited civil unions, domestic partnerships and other legal protections for same-sex couples and families. The Indiana House removed it earlier in the session, and the Senate today did not offer any amendments to the House version of the amendment.

“Six months ago, if you’d said lawmakers would refuse to put this issue on the ballot in 2014 by stripping out the deeply flawed second sentence, I’d have said there’s no way.

“What happened today at the Statehouse is a testament to the tens of thousands of Hoosiers who have shared their stories with lawmakers and with the public to show the harm this amendment would do to their families and our state. It’s clear that lawmakers listened.

“We continue to oppose the amendment in any form, but make no mistake: This is a huge victory.

“We are grateful to lawmakers for their openness and transparency during this process, and we thank them for conducting the discourse in a civil, respectful manner. We also owe an incredible debt of gratitude to our coalition partners who believed in our mission from the outset and to the Hoosiers who selflessly gave their time, effort and resources to the campaign.

“Today will go down in Indiana history as a win for freedom.”

I wouldn't have thought that today's event had a 10% probability of occurring when Freedom Indiana was announced less than six months ago.

Congratulations, Indiana!