SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — A California judge weighing potential prejudice in the title and summary of a proposed ballot measure concerning transgender children is considering his ruling after a Friday hearing.
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Stephen Acquisto already had issued a tentative ruling in favor of the state Attorney General’s Office, deciding that the title of the proposed measure — Restricts rights of transgender youth — as well as a summation of what the measure would do if passed was accurate and impartial.
However, Acquisto said after a Friday hearing that he’d consider the arguments made by attorneys that afternoon before issuing a final ruling.
“I’ll take the matter under submission and give it some thought,” Acquisto said.
The proposed ballot initiative — which has over 200,000 signatures out of some 550,000 needed to get on the ballot — would change existing law. It would require public and private schools and colleges to restrict gender-segregated areas to people’s gender at birth. It also would prohibit transgender girls and women from being in women’s sports, require schools to notify parents when a student asks to be treated as a gender other than the one listed in school records, and prohibit gender-affirming health care for transgender patients under 18.
Attorney Nicole Pearson — representing Protect Kids California, which filed the petition over the title and summary change — said the language must be true, impartial and not create prejudice. Attorney General Rob Bonta has failed that standard, and Pearson listed a series of interactions she said was evidence in her favor.
“We believe the evidence is extremely relevant,” she added.
Pearson argued that the effect the title and summary had on someone who heard it should be considered. Some people have been confused, she said.
Malcolm Brudigam, a deputy attorney general, called the issue a legal, not factual, one. The judge should consider the text of the title and summary, not people’s reactions to them.
“They are irrelevant,” Brudigam said. “They are also hearsay.”
Attorney Erin Friday, also representing Protect Kids California, said the word “restricts,” which appears in the title, has negative connotations and is prejudicial. She indicated that the word “limits” or phrase “limited exception” would be better.
Brudigam argued that the entire title and summary should be considered, not one word in isolation. Currently, students must be allowed to participate in sex-segregated activities and use facilities aligning with their gender identity. If the proposed ballot measure passes, that would be eliminated.
That, Brudigam said, is a restriction.
In his tentative ruling, Acquisto wrote that the attorney general has significant latitude when writing a title and summary. Granting a petition like Protect California Kids’ should occur only when they’re false, misleading or inconsistent with law.
“Under current law, minor students have express statutory rights with respect to their gender identity,” the judge wrote. “A substantial portion of the proposed measure is dedicated to eliminating or restricting these statutory rights.”
The proposed ballot measure comes after a handful of school districts have pushed back against state law.
Last July, the Chino Valley Unified School District adopted a policy that would require parental notification if their child identified as transgender. A judge later ruled that policy unconstitutional.
The Temecula Valley Unified School Board in December 2022 passed a resolution banning critical race theory from being taught. A judge in February opted against blocking that policy.
The Legislature has responded in different ways.
Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, a Torrance Democrat, introduced Assembly Bill 1825 — the Freedom to Read Act. It would affect public libraries, not school libraries, and prohibit them from banning material based on origin, background, the views of the people who created them or the opinions found within them.
