Protect Kids California Sues AG Rob Bonta for Mislabeling their Proposed Ballot Initiative

Protect Kids California, a parental rights group, has sued state Attorney General Rob Bonta for mislabeling their proposed ballot initiative that would counter transgender orthodoxy and the rush to transition kids.

But Sacramento Superior Court Judge Stephen Acquisto ruled last week that he would allow Bonta to keep the title of the ballot initiative that the group says is highly misleading, as the Globe reported.

However, one of the lawyers for Protect Kids California said in a statement that they are likely to appeal the “erroneous” ruling.

The whole point of ballot initiatives is to circumvent politicians and take issues directly to voters. Now Bonta is trying to stack the decks against the initiative with a biased title and description that arguably violates state law requiring that initiatives be given a neutral description.

Notwithstanding the judicial blessing, his insouciant abuse of his position is troubling and reveals  a certain amount of arrogance on his part.

The lawsuit says that when Protect Kids California submitted the initiative to Bonta so it could be placed on petitions he mangled its stated purpose with a new name and to make it sound like it would hurt kids.  This violated California law that requires that the California attorney general  “give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title and summary shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure,” the lawsuit says.

“Respondent’s title is neither true nor impartial. Instead, it is an argument intended, and does prejudice the voters of California against both signing and supporting the petition.”

As a result of the misleading language potential supporters are being scared away. Bonta’s “calculated and unlawful use of negative and deceptive language have been and are impeding Petitioners from obtaining support for the Initiative,” says the lawsuit, which was filed in the Sacramento division of California Superior Court.

The lawsuit says that the title Bonta is trying to force on Protect Kids California amounts to compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment.  “By infringing Petitioners’ soliciting of signatures and by using government power to compel ideological speech, the Respondent’s actions doubly trigger strict scrutiny. His actions cannot clear that lofty bar.”

Protect Kids California needs 50,000 signatures to get the initiative on the November 2024 ballot.

Last September Protect Kids California submitted to Bonta a ballot initiative that they titled the “Protect Kids of California Act of 2024.”  The initiative would prohibit sex change chemicals and surgeries for minors; prohibit boys who identify as girls for playing in girls sports; require schools to notify parents if their kids are transitioning and require schools to only allow students in bathrooms and locker rooms that match their biological sex.

This sounds like an accurate description about a measure that would, in fact, protect kids.

There have been countless stories about how ideological teachers try to convince students they need to change gender behind parents’ backs.  And how chemicals like puberty blockers are toxic. And how girls get injured when a male who identifies as female gets to play against them in school sporting competitions.

But when Bonta officially released the petition in November he titled it the  “Restricts Rights of Transgender Youth Initiative.”

Liberty Justice Center lawyer Emily Rae, one of the attorneys for the lawsuit, told the California Globe that Bonta’s description showed bias and imputed to minors rights that they don’t have.

“The Initiative at issue in the litigation, which proponents originally titled the “Protect Kids California Act,” was created to accomplish multiple goals, “she emailed. It legally defines the terms “male” and “female,” secures parental rights, ensures that experimental treatments are not available for minors, and protects women’s sports and spaces.”

Moreover, “Minors currently do not have a right to publicly socially transition at school and hide that fact from their parents. Minors do not have the right to access permanent, irreversible ‘gender-affirming’ medical treatments that can leave them sterile for the rest of their lives. Finally, the law does not restrict transgender individuals’ rights to play sports or use bathroom facilities, it simply clarifies which teams and facilities are appropriate to use.”

But Judge Acquisto wrote in his ruling that, “The proposed measure objectively ‘restricts rights’ of transgender youth by preventing the exercise of their existing rights. ‘Restricts rights of transgender youth’ is an accurate and impartial description of the proposed measure.”

The judge also found that the word “protect” was ”subjective and debatable” and “appears to be the type of advocacy disallowed in a title and summary.”

“The attorney general’s wording, on the other hand, provides an accurate description of the immediate and tangible effect of the proposed measure,” he decided.

Bonta’s office said in a statement that “We are pleased with the court’s decision to uphold the attorney general’s fair and accurate title and summary for this measure.”

But it sounds like the fight is not over.

Nicole Pearson, another lawyer for Protect Kids California, said in a statement that “we are reviewing our options for an appeal of these clear errors and will announce a decision shortly.”

“The mental gymnastics Judge Acquisto did to justify his erroneous ruling are not only an egregious abuse of discretion that entitles our clients to an appeal, but a chilling interpretation of law that jeopardizes the very foundation of our constitutional republic.”