California law required Attorney General Rob Bonta to write a neutral title and summary for a 2024 ballot measure to mandate parental notification when children request to be identified as the opposite sex in school records, limit girls’ sports to females and prohibit puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and genital surgery for gender-confused youth.
Having just sued a school district for the same parental notification policy, the Democratic attorney’s title for the Protect Kids of California Act seemed predictable: “Restricts Rights of Transgender Youth.”
His summary used the same framing, referring to males who identify as girls as “transgender female students,” claiming the parental notification mandate lacks an “exception for student safety” and referring to medicalized gender transitions as “gender-affirming health care.”
Sixteen months after a trial judge upheld Bonta’s phrasing as “accurately and impartially” conveying the substance of the measure, which under Bonta’s language fell short of the required signatures for the ballot within the 180-day collection window, Protect Kids California’s crusade to give voters a direct say in the matter may founder on a technicality.
Polling suggests voters would approve the measure, with majority support for each of the three prongs, but an appeals panel repeatedly grilled the group’s lawyer at a hearing Monday on why the case wasn’t moot in light of Protect Kids California’s litigation choices.
The three judges essentially made Bonta’s argument for him as Liberty Justice Center counsel Emily Rae tried to redirect them toward Bonta’s “malfeasance,” for what its lawsuit called his “inaccurate, false, and biased” language. The panel, by contrast, asked deputy AG Malcolm Brudigam just a single question during the state’s argument.
Hellbound and Down 