Parents’ Group Accuses Rob Bonta of Misleading Voters with Rebranded Initiative
California Attorney General Rob Bonta (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
California parents took legal action against the state’s attorney general this week, alleging that he manipulated the language of their ballot initiative to undermine their efforts in allowing voters to have a say on transgender policies for children.
The parent group, Protect Kids California, filed a complaint claiming that Rob Bonta, a Democratic attorney general who is considering a gubernatorial run in 2026, intentionally rebranded their petition to confuse and mislead voters with biased language that portrays it as harmful to children. The lawsuit argues that Bonta violated his duty to present clear and impartial ballot measures to Californians.
The complaint states that Bonta’s ”calculated and unlawful use of negative and deceptive language” has hindered the petitioners from gaining support for their initiative.
The lawsuit comes just a month before the parent coalition must gather nearly 50,000 signatures to qualify their measure for the November ballot. As attorney general, Bonta is responsible for approving the language of all voter initiatives before signatures can be collected. According to California election law, the circulated ballot language must be impartial and should not ”substantially mislead or misinform.”
The initiative, launched last fall, aims to prohibit sex change drugs or surgeries for minors, prevent schools from facilitating gender transitions without parental consent, and disallow boys from participating in girls’ high school sports. Bonta titled the measure as “Restricts the Rights of Transgender Youth” and falsely claimed that it does not prioritize student safety when it actually maintains existing laws allowing counselors to address gender identity issues in cases of danger and requiring schools to report suspected abuse.
The attorney general’s language also falsely stated that the petition would ban “gender-affirming health care,” while the initiative’s supporters clarify that it only opposes irreversible drugs and surgeries, not affirmative therapy.
A May Rasmussen poll revealed that nearly 70 percent of Californians believe schools should inform parents if their child wishes to transition genders at school.
A majority of American voters, including 67 percent of Democrats, oppose providing sex-change drugs or surgeries to minors. Additionally, 69 percent believe that children should participate in sports teams based on their biological sex.
Protect Kids California highlights Bonta’s lack of impartiality on these policies, citing his prosecution of a school district for its parental notification policy regarding gender transitions and his involvement in lawsuits defending boys’ participation in girls’ high school sports.
“Attorney General Bonta has made his position clear—he opposes the entire purpose of Protect Kids California’s initiative,” said Erin Friday, a Democratic San Francisco attorney involved in the lawsuit. “They had no chance of receiving an impartial title and summary. Furthermore, Bonta has an insurmountable conflict of interest as a plaintiff, defendant, and amicus in multiple related lawsuits.”
In response, a representative for Bonta stated that the attorney general’s office takes the responsibility of writing ballot measure titles and summaries seriously and stands by their title and summary for this measure. The representative declined to comment on the ongoing litigation.
What are the potential implications of the legal battle surrounding this initiative on the representation of ballot initiatives in California and other states
Initiative would “reverse decades of progress for LGBTQ+ rights.” However, the parents’ group argues that their initiative is not intended to target LGBTQ+ rights, but rather to protect children and ensure that parents have a say in decisions that may affect their child’s well-being. They claim that Bonta purposely used biased and misleading language to discourage support for their cause.
The controversy surrounding the rebranded initiative has sparked a debate over the role of the attorney general in shaping the language of ballot measures. Critics argue that Bonta has overstepped his authority and abused his power by injecting his own political biases into the process. They say that he should remain impartial and solely focus on providing accurate and neutral descriptions of the initiatives.
Supporters of Bonta, on the other hand, argue that he has the right to use his discretion in determining the language of the ballot measures. They claim that he is fulfilling his duty to inform voters about the potential impact of the initiatives and allowing them to make an informed decision.
The outcome of this legal battle could have far-reaching implications for the representation of ballot initiatives in California and potentially other states as well. It raises important questions about the appropriate level of transparency, neutrality, and accountability expected from the state’s attorney general.
Regardless of the final ruling in this case, it is clear that there is a deep divide among Californians on the issue of transgender policies for children. It is essential to have open and respectful discussions to address the concerns of all parties involved and find solutions that prioritize both the well-being of children and the protection of individual rights.
As the legal battle continues, the parent group remains committed to their cause and is determined to gather the necessary signatures to qualify their measure for the ballot. They are calling on Californians who share their concerns to support them and ensure that their voices are heard.
With the November election approaching, it will be interesting to see how this dispute unfolds and the impact it will have on the larger debate surrounding transgender policies in California and beyond.
Now loading...