Anti-Trans Ballot Measure Introduced in CA

A California group long opposed to LGBT rights has introduced a ballot measure that would legislate which public restrooms transgender people could use.

Submitted April 17 by the Pacific Justice Institute to state Attorney General Kamala Harris' office for title and summary review, the so-called Personal Privacy Protection Act would require a person to use restrooms and other facilities in government buildings "in accordance with their biological sex."

"We have great compassion for any person that is uncomfortable in traditional, sex separated facilities. But we also want to protect the privacy that most of us expect when we are in public bathrooms, showers and dressing areas" stated Gina Gleason, a proponent of the initiative, in a press release circulated by the Capital Resource Institute.

Gleason, executive director of the Los Angeles-based Faith and Public Policy, and the institute's Karen England were behind the unsuccessful effort in 2013 to overturn at the ballot box a state law that allows transgender students to use school facilities, such as restrooms and locker rooms, that match their gender identity.

State officials determined they had failed to gather the necessary valid signatures from registered voters needed to place the repeal effort of AB 1266, known as the School Success and Opportunity Act, on the ballot in 2014. The proponents of the ballot measure, calling themselves Privacy For All, then sued the state, and the case is still pending.

"California voters may have two chances to vote against co-ed bathrooms in 2016," stated England. "We hope to wrap up the court battle over the AB 1266 referendum and place that on the ballot, but we also expect to have this new initiative before the voters at the same time."

The proponents of the new initiative would need to gather 365,880 signatures of California voters to place the measure on the November 2016 ballot. It is the second anti-gay statewide ballot measure introduced this year.

In February attorney Matthew G. McLaughlin submitted the "Sodomite Suppression Act," which calls for gays to be killed. It also would bar anyone who supports LGBT people from serving in public office and sentence them to 10 years in prison. Harris has asked permission from a state court to summarily reject McLaughlin's initiative for being "patently unconstitutional."

LGBT leaders have used the introduction of the homophobic initiatives to call for reforming the rules governing how ballot measures are placed before the state's voters.

"Once again we see how a few individuals can subvert the democratic process and continue to target the LGBT community. This is an abuse of direct democracy to indulge in bigotry," stated lesbian Assemblywoman Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-Stockton), chair of the Legislative LGBT Caucus. "We see it happening with the Sodomite Suppression Act and we saw it with Proposition 8. Opponents of the School Success and Opportunity Act already attempted to repeal the law through referendum and they failed."

Should the bathroom privacy initiative pass, it would allow individuals to file a civil claim for violation of privacy against a government entity or a person for "willful violation" of the act, with violators potentially liable for no less than $4,000 in damages and attorney's fees. A person whose privacy "was violated while using facilities," or who was unable to use facilities because of a violation under the act, would be able to seek damages through the state courts.

"So ... transgender men like me could be fined $4,000 or more for using the men's room. Please take this seriously, California. ?#?WeJustNeedtoPee?," Masen Davis, the former executive director of the Transgender Law Center, wrote on his Facebook account this week in reaction to the initiative.??

The act would also protect businesses from being sued or facing court claims for requiring a person to use facilities based on their sex at birth. In addition to bathrooms, the act would cover showers, dressing rooms, and locker rooms open to the public.

The act would not apply to usage of family restrooms, single use facilities, or instances where a child or adult with a medical condition needs the assistance of another person to use the facility.

"Not only is this initiative potentially in conflict with Title IX, it is also yet another attempt to roll back all of the progress toward equality we have made in California," stated Eggman. "As long as individuals can legislate discrimination at the ballot box, we cannot assume that our rights will be protected."