"Boys will be boys (most of the time)... "

We the People...

ON "STOP AB1266!"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CRI

 

 Governor Brown Signs Co-Ed Bathroom Bill

California Students Lose Their Right to Privacy

 

 

Sacramento, CA - Assembly Bill 1266 was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown today. AB 1266 forces schools to allow students to participate in sex-segregated school programs, sports activities, and to be allowed access the bathroom and locker room of the student's choice consistent with his or her opinion of their gender. The law is the first of its kind in the country.

 

"Current law dealt with this sensitive issue on a case by case basis," said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute, "but this bill was never about helping a few children that experience gender dysphoria - it is about furthering the radical Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender agenda by utilizing the public school system to force acceptance of the lifestyle on our children.

 

"This law takes away students' privacy rights, puts our children at risk, and limits the authority of local school districts. AB 1266 does not require proof for students who claim to have gender identity issues so the school administrators will have to take the child on his or her word when they want to use the facilities of the opposite sex. The law does not provide safety measures to prevent abuses of this policy - districts' will have lawsuits coming from both sides because schools have no authority to fully protect the majority of students.

 

"The homosexual activists are forcing San Francisco values on all California public schools at the expense of the most vulnerable, our children."

 

California transgender students given access to opposite-sex programs

 

Gender ID bill bears risk of personal pain: Debra J. Saunders

 

View Support and Opposition

 

6/10/2013 - SENATE EDUCATION (Based on text dated 4/25/2013)

SUPPORT

*    American Civil Liberties Union

*    California Federation of Teachers

*    California Teachers Association

*    Public Advocates, Inc.

*    San Francisco Unified School District

*    California State PTA

*    Anti-Defamation League

*    National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter (NASW-CA)

*    Gender Spectrum

OPPOSE

 

*    California Catholic Conference

*    Capital Resources Family Impact

*    Concerned Women for America

*    Traditional Values Coalition

*    California Federation of Republican Women

 

Capitol Resource Institute | 660 J Street | Suite 250 | Sacramento | CA | 95814

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A MONTH'S WORTH...


06/17/14
Fellow Conservatives:

One week.

That's how much time we have left to help Chris McDaniel (R-MS) and T.W. Shannon(R-OK) win their races for the U.S. Senate.

We're working hard to help them get their conservative message out. We have helped raise tens of thousands of dollars for these outstanding leaders and we are buying TV time for new ads promoting their campaigns.

But we won't win these races without your help today.

These conservatives are getting outspent by the special interests and will lose if we don't fight back. That's a fact.

Please make a contribution to the Senate Conservatives Fund.

The Republican establishment has gone "all in" in these races and are spending millions to convince voters their opponents are conservative.

The truth is Senator Thad Cochran (R-MS) and Congressman James Lankford (R-OK) are Washington insiders. 

Cochran has been in Washington for 41 years and Lankford is part of Speaker John Boehner's inner circle. Both have voted with the Democrats for wasteful spending, higher taxes, and more debt.
 

The grassroots rose up to help Chris McDaniel surge into a runoff in Mississippi on June 3rd and to help Dave Brat defeat House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in Virginia a week later.

We have the establishment on the run and we can't let up.

We need 1,000 people to donate $25, 500 people to donate $50, and 250 people to donate $100 or more.

Will you take a stand and help us change Washington?

Let's make history next week by replacing these Washington insiders with strong, constitutional conservatives.

Thank you for standing strong for freedom and for doing so much to help restore America's greatness.

Sincerely,

Ken Cuccinelli II
President, Senate Conservatives Fund
@KenCuccinelli / @SCF

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter.

Like One Week on Facebook     share on Twitter

You're receiving this email because you subscribed to the Senate Conservatives email list.

Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF) is an independent, grassroots organization dedicated to electing true conservatives to the United States Senate. SCF only supports candidates who have the courage to fight for limited government, a strong national defense, and traditional family values. SCF is not affiliated with the Republican Party or any of its campaign committees.

Contributions to the Senate Conservatives Fund are not deductible as charitable contributions. Contributions from corporations or foreign nationals lacking permanent resident status are not permitted. Federal law requires us to report the name, mailing address, occupation and employer for each individual whose contributions aggregate in excess of $200 in a calendar year. Not paid for at taxpayer expense.




Senate Conservatives Fund
P.O. Box 388
Alexandria, VA 22313


PAID FOR BY SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND 
NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE'S COMMITTEE
SENATECONSERVATIVES.COM


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



 

05/05/14

R Rated

 

It is often difficult to communicate the threat to privacy from policies like AB 1266 that are now being pushed across the country.  It is an R rated subject that we are trying to present in family friendly language.

 

At Privacy For All Students we have developed a polite way to talk about matters not usually discussed.  We write about the sexual integration of bathrooms and locker rooms.  We talk of legislation that forces boys and girls to share formerly private facilities.  We note that bathrooms, showers and locker rooms will be opened to individuals that are biologically and legally of the opposite sex, even though they may ask to be called a name that is associated with the opposite gender. 

 

Our language is not very graphic.

 

We choose our words carefully because this is quite literally toilet talk.  We are trying not to offend.

 

Our opponents are also careful not to describe the blunt reality of this radical change in policy.  They know that they are pushing new norms that will result in children exposing themselves to members of the opposite sex.  But they will not describe it that way.  In fact, they will act offended that we describe it that way.

 

They will talk of gender identity and ignore gender reality.

 

They will concentrate on the discomfort of a few that feel awkward in traditional, sex segregated facilities while ignoring the discomfort of the many when they are forced to disrobe in a locker room with individuals who are legally and physically of the opposite gender.

 

They will take advantage of our decency that makes us shy away from a graphic discussion of what happens when we figuratively remove the "boys" and "girls" signs from the bathrooms. 

 

Their success in bullying this policy is directly related to our timidity.

 

In California the battle is now in the courts as we fight to gain back some of the thousands of petition signatures improperly rejected by county elections officials in the effort to put a referendum on the ballot to overturn AB 1266.

 

In the rest of the country, the sometimes confusing discussion is just starting.  People find it hard to believe that the policy being advocated would allow an individual to choose which bathroom or locker room best aligns with their self described gender even though this is contrary to their actual gender. 

 

I hope that in California and throughout the country the issue will be confronted boldly.  Ironically, for the sake of decency we need to have an indecent discussion. 

 

Gina Gleason

Proponent

 

Feds Open Their Bathrooms

 

It has been less than nine months since we started Privacy For All Students to protect the privacy and safety of boys and girls that were going to be forced to share bathrooms, showers and locker rooms.

 

Now the federal government has quietly enacted a similar policy for federal employees.  It states in part:

 

For a transitioning employee, this means that, once he or she has begun living and working full-time in the gender that reflects his or her gender identity, agencies should allow access to restrooms and (if provided to other employees) locker room facilities consistent with his or her gender identity.  While a reasonable temporary compromise may be appropriate in some circumstances, transitioning employees should not be required to have undergone or to provide proof of any particular medical procedure (including gender reassignment surgery) in order to have access to facilities designated for use by a particular gender.  

 

You can read the full federal guidelines here. 

 

At PFAS we knew that this radical policy would not be confined to California public schools.  But it is shocking to see how little regard there is for those who have an expectation of privacy in traditionally gender segregated facilities. 


Today we will be back in court.  We will keep you informed.


Karen England


Make a contribution to Privacy For All Students today!

READ: 

Voter registration cards found in trash. 

 

Paid for by

Privacy For All Students -Stop AB 1266

660 J Street, Ste., 250

Sacramento, CA 95814

ID# 1359959 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 

Update from our legal team after our court hearing on Friday, April 18, 2014

04/21/14 

BREAKING NEWS: State Silences Voters on Co-ed Bathroom Bill

 

Sacramento, CA--In a major setback to the voice of voters in California, a Sacramento Superior Court judge ruled this afternoon in favor of a motion by the State to squelch subpoenas that sought records to verify invalidated signatures for the Co-ed Bathroom Bill referendum efforts.

 

Brad Dacus, President of Pacific Justice Institute, said, "We disagree with this lower court's decision, and we intend to challenge it by filing a writ so that we have the adequate opportunity to hold the government accountable for how they invalidated over 130,000 signatures. We know for a fact that egregious errors have been made, and we'll exhaust all legal remedies in order to ensure every valid signature is counted."

 

Of the roughly 620,000 signatures submitted to qualify the referendum, over 130,000 were thrown out. The Privacy of All Students coalition (PFAS) reviewed many disqualified signatures and found that there was abuse of discretion and arbitrary decisions by election officials, as well as disparaging inequalities for those who are blind or elderly. Of note, one of the lead attorneys on this case was surprised to find out his own signature was thrown out because it didn't match the one on file-something unfortunately plausible as he has gone blind over these last few years and can't see what he writes with a pen.

 

PJI is acting as lead counsel in the case, Gleason v. Bowen.

READ: 

Voter registration cards found in trash. 


Make a contribution to Privacy For All Students today!

 
 

Paid for by

Privacy For All Students -Stop AB 1266

660 J Street, Ste., 250

Sacramento, CA 95814

ID# 1359959 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 

04/11/14

Full Court Press 

 

Privacy For All Students is in court today in our latest challenge to the California Secretary of State.  Like our past successful court action against the SOS, we are asking that she count signatures wrongfully rejected in the effort to qualify a referendum against AB 1266, the law that would force boys and girls to share public school locker rooms, showers and bathrooms. 

 

The Secretary of State, backed by the staff and resources of the California Attorney General, is arguing that too few valid signatures were presented and that PFAS should not be provided access to the documents that can prove otherwise. 

 

While we are allowed to by law to look at the more than 131,000 rejected signatures, the SOS believes that we are very limited in that right.

 

Ironically, government representatives are arguing that Privacy For All Students' examination and evidence collecting rights are severely limited because of PRIVACY.


Apparently the proponent of the referendum and her representative are supposed to push through the hostility and procedural roadblocks, examine 131,000 signatures spread throughout the 58 counties, memorize the errors, and then convince the court that our analysis is correct despite having no evidence, only testimony to offer the court.  We argue that this is not possible, practical, nor is it the law.

 

The errors and abuse of discretion are there.  PFAS has been in a number of the counties and it is not very hard to find.  One of the supporting documents offered to the court describes what happened in one county.  An elections official pulled up the very first example to show that a signer of the petition was not registered.  And then she pulled up the registration showing that in fact this signer was registered.  Embarrassed, she said that this was not a good example and moved on.  But there were many more examples of the same in that county and others. 

 

Today's hearing is crucial to the immediate battle but also to whether or not the referendum right is real and meaningful in California.

 

PFAS is breaking new ground with this challenge.  In an email obtained in an earlier information request, the Napa Registrar noted: 

 

Because this will be the first time in my almost 18 years as Napa County Registrar of Voters that an insufficient, statewide petition has been inspected by the proponents, I cannot say what will be the process if the proponents wish to challenge our finding of insufficiency of one or more signatures. 

 

Apparently the determination of the government on these matters has historically not been challenged.  Lack of financial resources may have been a reason for past acceptance of State declarations without a fight.  Please help assure that PFAS can continue this battle by donating today.

READ: 

Voter registration cards found in trash. 


Make a contribution to Privacy For All Students today!

 
 

Paid for by

Privacy For All Students -Stop AB 1266

660 J Street, Ste., 250

Sacramento, CA 95814

ID# 1359959


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 

Below is an update from the legal team representing

Privacy For All Students

 

 04/10/14

 

Court Friday to Weigh Whether Counties Can Withhold Evidence of Invalidated Referendum Signatures

 

Sacramento, CA-A key court hearing tomorrow is expected to determine whether counties must turn over more than 130,000 signatures that were thrown out as part of the so-called "Co-Ed School Bathroom Bill" referendum.

 

After the Secretary of State declared on Feb. 24 that the referendum failed because only about 487,000 of the 620,000 voter signatures were valid, volunteers with the referendum campaign went to several county elections offices to inspect the invalidated signatures.  During these inspections, it became clear to the Privacy for All Students (PFAS) coalition that many signatures had been wrongly disqualified.  The coalition filed suit on March 14 and sent subpoenas to most of the counties to produce the invalidated signatures.

 

The State is now arguing that the signatures cannot be turned over due to voter confidentiality.  If successful, the State's arguments would deprive referendum backers of the evidence necessary to prove that signatures were wrongly thrown out.  The State's motion to quash subpoenas will be heard before Judge Timothy Frawley of the Sacramento Superior Court this Friday, April 11, 2014.

 

Pacific Justice Institute is acting as lead counsel in the case, Gleason v. Bowen.  The president of PJI, Brad Dacus, commented, "This is yet another attempt by the Secretary of State to deprive voters of their fundamental rights.  It is outrageous that the State wants to avoid all accountability, even when referendum signatures are wrongly invalidated.  We're not going to let this happen without a fight.  No state or county official is above the law."

 

The referendum seeks to overturn the highly controversial AB 1266, a bill enacted by the Legislature and signed by Governor Brown last year that would allow students to choose bathrooms, locker rooms and sports teams based on their self-identified gender and not based on biology or anatomy. 

 
The following article was written by Matthew McReynolds and appeared in the Flash Report on March 13, 2014. 
 
Disenfranchising the Disabled-Democracy 
Takes a Hit in California

As an attorney with the Pacific Justice Institute, I have been part of the legal team seeking to assure the fair validation of signatures for the referendum on AB 1266, the "co-ed bathroom bill." I was also heavily involved in the effort to defeat this outlandish bill in the Legislature.


So imagine my surprise and outrage when I learned recently that one of the signatures tossed out by elections officials reviewing our petitions ... was my own. You read that correctly-a petition from one of the key backers of the referendum, more familiar than most with the rules, was not good enough to satisfy elections workers here in Sacramento County. So what did I do wrong? The explanation was that my signature didn't look exactly like it had on my registration card. And you know what? They're probably right; my signature has undoubtedly changed over the last few years as I have become totally blind and no longer able to see what I've written. That's a long story that I'll save for another day. But my disability shouldn't prevent me from participating in such a core function of democracy as signing a referendum petition.

What's really scary is that I only found out I had been disenfranchised because I am very involved in the massive effort by the Privacy for All Students coalition to examine the signatures that were invalidated. Otherwise, I would never have even known that officials were quietly taking away my rights. Consider for a moment that roughly 130,000 signatures of the 620,000 submitted by PFAs have been thrown out. We've been highly skeptical from the beginning that so many signatures were really invalid. Now our worst fears are being confirmed. We are finding subjective standards that vary from county to county. A signature that might be validated in one county might not be validated in the next county.

How many other disabled people like myself have been disenfranchised without even knowing it? How many senior citizens whose signatures have changed since they registered, perhaps decades ago? We don't yet know, but we're getting to the bottom of it. With such a thin margin between victory and defeat-less than 20,000 out of the 620,000 total signatures submitted-we are determined to make every valid signature count.

Maybe you don't care about this particular referendum or shy away from hot-button social issues. But you don't have to be a flaming conservative to care about the fundamental principle that grassroots democracy like referendum efforts should not be thwarted by subjective, unknowable criteria imposed at the whims of elections officials. That's something we should all be able to agree on-and something that is threatened by the present process.

Matt McReynolds is an attorney with the 
Pacific Justice Institute.
 
Boy Allowed in Girls' School Bathroom: 
Victims Respond  
 
Boy Allowed in Girls' School Bathroom: Victims Respond
 

 

READ: 

Voter registration cards found in trash. 


Make a contribution to Privacy For All Students today!

 
 

Paid for by

Privacy For All Students -Stop AB 1266

660 J Street, Ste., 250

Sacramento, CA 95814

ID# 1359959 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 

03/28/14 

In Case You Just Tuned In

 

Let's review where we have been and where we are going.

 

In August of 2013, the Governor signed into law AB 1266.  This bill repeated some existing legal language and then it added a shocking section that allowed K-12 public school students to choose the bathroom, locker room and shower facilities consistent with the student's gender identity.  Gender identity has nothing to do with your biological gender--a boy can say he feels more like a girl and a girl claim that she feels more like a boy.  And that is all that is needed under this law to allow them to ignore the gender signs on the bathroom.

 

A boy that identifies as a girl would be allowed to use the girls' locker room.  A girl that identifies as a boy would be able to use the boys' shower facilities.  And nobody could object. 

 

Boys and girls that expect privacy when they are changing and showering would now be forced to shower and dress with members of the opposite sex.  Their discomfort and humiliation was ignored in this radical bill.

 

Many Californians said that this could not be allowed.  And so Privacy For All Students was formed to fight for the rights of all students, especially those who felt that this new law would allow an intrusion on their privacy and safety.

 

PFAS took on the huge task of passing a referendum to overturn AB 1266.  By law we had just three months to collect more than 500,000 signatures of registered California voters.  We actually collected about 620,000 signatures showing the strong opposition to this new law.

 

But even before the deadline to submit the signatures, our opponents started their dirty tricks.  The Secretary of State actually tried to throw out all of the signatures collected in two northern California counties.  PFAS had to go to court to have these signatures counted.  But as the full count came in, the Secretary of State declared that more than 131,000 signatures would be rejected leaving us 17,276 signatures short of what was needed.

 

Of course we kept fighting.  The law allowed us to examine the rejected signatures in order to challenge them.  But the government officials have thrown countless obstacles in our way to keep us from finding out why they threw out more than one in five of the signatures counted.

 

So back to court we go.  Another suit has been filed and county officials around the State have been served with a demand for documents that we believe will show an abuse of discretion in rejecting so many signatures. 

 

PFAS wants to have every valid signature counted and qualify this referendum for the November ballot.  We know that the voters will reject this crazy law if given the chance.

 

With your continued support, we will not only reject this terrible invasion into our children's privacy, we will push back on the excessive discretion that is being exercised by partisan officials.

 

Please help us continue the fight with a donation today!

 

Karen England

Privacy For All Students

 
Boy Allowed in Girls' School Bathroom: 
Victims Respond  
 
Boy Allowed in Girls' School Bathroom: Victims Respond
 

 

 
The following article was written by Matthew McReynolds and appeared in the Flash Report on March 13, 2014. 
 
Disenfranchising the Disabled-Democracy 
Takes a Hit in California

As an attorney with the Pacific Justice Institute, I have been part of the legal team seeking to assure the fair validation of signatures for the referendum on AB 1266, the "co-ed bathroom bill." I was also heavily involved in the effort to defeat this outlandish bill in the Legislature.


So imagine my surprise and outrage when I learned recently that one of the signatures tossed out by elections officials reviewing our petitions ... was my own. You read that correctly-a petition from one of the key backers of the referendum, more familiar than most with the rules, was not good enough to satisfy elections workers here in Sacramento County. So what did I do wrong? The explanation was that my signature didn't look exactly like it had on my registration card. And you know what? They're probably right; my signature has undoubtedly changed over the last few years as I have become totally blind and no longer able to see what I've written. That's a long story that I'll save for another day. But my disability shouldn't prevent me from participating in such a core function of democracy as signing a referendum petition.

What's really scary is that I only found out I had been disenfranchised because I am very involved in the massive effort by the Privacy for All Students coalition to examine the signatures that were invalidated. Otherwise, I would never have even known that officials were quietly taking away my rights. Consider for a moment that roughly 130,000 signatures of the 620,000 submitted by PFAs have been thrown out. We've been highly skeptical from the beginning that so many signatures were really invalid. Now our worst fears are being confirmed. We are finding subjective standards that vary from county to county. A signature that might be validated in one county might not be validated in the next county.

How many other disabled people like myself have been disenfranchised without even knowing it? How many senior citizens whose signatures have changed since they registered, perhaps decades ago? We don't yet know, but we're getting to the bottom of it. With such a thin margin between victory and defeat-less than 20,000 out of the 620,000 total signatures submitted-we are determined to make every valid signature count.

Maybe you don't care about this particular referendum or shy away from hot-button social issues. But you don't have to be a flaming conservative to care about the fundamental principle that grassroots democracy like referendum efforts should not be thwarted by subjective, unknowable criteria imposed at the whims of elections officials. That's something we should all be able to agree on-and something that is threatened by the present process.

Matt McReynolds is an attorney with the 
Pacific Justice Institute.

READ: 

Voter registration cards found in trash. 


Make a contribution to Privacy For All Students today!

 
 

Paid for by

Privacy For All Students -Stop AB 1266

660 J Street, Ste., 250

Sacramento, CA 95814

ID# 1359959 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 

03/25/14

Back to Court

 

Unfortunately Privacy For All Students is headed back to court.

 

We have served the Secretary of State with another legal action asking her to qualify the referendum and we have served county officials across the State with a demand for the documents to prove the abuse of discretion in rejecting more than 131,000 signatures.

 

Recently I let you know that the Secretary of State will continue her fight to disenfranchise thousands of individuals who had signed the referendum petitions in two northern California counties.  Despite the strong judgment against her, Secretary Bowen has decided to fight on and appeal that court decision.

 

She may think that her taxpayer paid legal team and the power of her elected office will intimidate us.  But she is wrong.

 

Keeping boys out of the girls' bathroom and locker room is an issue of privacy and safety.

 

Counting all of the valid signatures is an issue of integrity and trust.

 

We must fight for all of these things.

 

Thank you for your continued support in this battle.

 

Gina Gleason

Proponent

 

Donate Online Today!

 
Boy Allowed in Girls' School Bathroom: 
Victims Respond  
 
Boy Allowed in Girls' School Bathroom: Victims Respond
 

 

 
The following article was written by Matthew McReynolds and appeared in the Flash Report on March 13, 2014. 
 
Disenfranchising the Disabled-Democracy 
Takes a Hit in California

As an attorney with the Pacific Justice Institute, I have been part of the legal team seeking to assure the fair validation of signatures for the referendum on AB 1266, the "co-ed bathroom bill." I was also heavily involved in the effort to defeat this outlandish bill in the Legislature.


So imagine my surprise and outrage when I learned recently that one of the signatures tossed out by elections officials reviewing our petitions ... was my own. You read that correctly-a petition from one of the key backers of the referendum, more familiar than most with the rules, was not good enough to satisfy elections workers here in Sacramento County. So what did I do wrong? The explanation was that my signature didn't look exactly like it had on my registration card. And you know what? They're probably right; my signature has undoubtedly changed over the last few years as I have become totally blind and no longer able to see what I've written. That's a long story that I'll save for another day. But my disability shouldn't prevent me from participating in such a core function of democracy as signing a referendum petition.

What's really scary is that I only found out I had been disenfranchised because I am very involved in the massive effort by the Privacy for All Students coalition to examine the signatures that were invalidated. Otherwise, I would never have even known that officials were quietly taking away my rights. Consider for a moment that roughly 130,000 signatures of the 620,000 submitted by PFAs have been thrown out. We've been highly skeptical from the beginning that so many signatures were really invalid. Now our worst fears are being confirmed. We are finding subjective standards that vary from county to county. A signature that might be validated in one county might not be validated in the next county.

How many other disabled people like myself have been disenfranchised without even knowing it? How many senior citizens whose signatures have changed since they registered, perhaps decades ago? We don't yet know, but we're getting to the bottom of it. With such a thin margin between victory and defeat-less than 20,000 out of the 620,000 total signatures submitted-we are determined to make every valid signature count.

Maybe you don't care about this particular referendum or shy away from hot-button social issues. But you don't have to be a flaming conservative to care about the fundamental principle that grassroots democracy like referendum efforts should not be thwarted by subjective, unknowable criteria imposed at the whims of elections officials. That's something we should all be able to agree on-and something that is threatened by the present process.

Matt McReynolds is an attorney with the 
Pacific Justice Institute.
 
We intend to fight to have every valid signature counted. 

 

Donate today to help PFAS challenge those signatures improperly deemed invalid.


Make a contribution to Privacy For All Students today!

 
 

Paid for by

Privacy For All Students -Stop AB 1266

660 J Street, Ste., 250

Sacramento, CA 95814

ID# 1359959


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 

03/21/14

Thank You

 

Earlier this week I shared with you the shocking news that the California Secretary of State is appealing the decision in Gleason v Bowen

 

As most of you know, I sued the Secretary of State to force her to count signatures that she tried to throw out in two northern California counties.  To the surprise of many (apparently including the judge that ruled against her) Secretary Bowen did not care that a county employee refused to accept timely delivered signatures. 

 

That county employee told a FedEx delivery person to bring the signatures back at a time that was past the deadline.  Bowen implicitly endorsed that manipulation by declaring the signatures as "late".  The court disagreed.  Now Secretary Bowen is going to heap another insult on the signers in those counties, and use more taxpayer funds to go into court again on this same matter.

 

I want to thank those of you that responded to my earlier email.  Obviously many of you share my outrage at the behavior of this elected official.

 

But many of you have expressed your sympathy for me personally.  Thank you. 

 

You recognize that I had no idea that my efforts to defend the privacy of our sons and daughters would lead to my name on a legal action against a State official.

 

Please don't worry about me.   It is my privilege to be in the front of this battle along with the PFAS Executive Committee. But the battle belongs to you.  It belongs to 620,000 people that signed this referendum petition, and especially the 131,000 whose signatures have been rejected. 

 

It also belongs to California public school students who should not be forced to share bathrooms, locker rooms and showers with members of the opposite sex.

 

With your help, the entire PFAS team will continue this fight until every valid signature is counted and the referendum qualifies for the November ballot.

 

Please donate today to help us keep that commitment to do everything we can.

 

Gina Gleason

Proponent

 
The following article was written by Matthew McReynolds and appeared in the Flash Report on March 13, 2014. 
 
Disenfranchising the Disabled-Democracy Takes a Hit in California

As an attorney with the Pacific Justice Institute, I have been part of the legal team seeking to assure the fair validation of signatures for the referendum on AB 1266, the "co-ed bathroom bill." I was also heavily involved in the effort to defeat this outlandish bill in the Legislature.

So imagine my surprise and outrage when I learned recently that one of the signatures tossed out by elections officials reviewing our petitions ... was my own. You read that correctly-a petition from one of the key backers of the referendum, more familiar than most with the rules, was not good enough to satisfy elections workers here in Sacramento County. So what did I do wrong? The explanation was that my signature didn't look exactly like it had on my registration card. And you know what? They're probably right; my signature has undoubtedly changed over the last few years as I have become totally blind and no longer able to see what I've written. That's a long story that I'll save for another day. But my disability shouldn't prevent me from participating in such a core function of democracy as signing a referendum petition.

What's really scary is that I only found out I had been disenfranchised because I am very involved in the massive effort by the Privacy for All Students coalition to examine the signatures that were invalidated. Otherwise, I would never have even known that officials were quietly taking away my rights. Consider for a moment that roughly 130,000 signatures of the 620,000 submitted by PFAs have been thrown out. We've been highly skeptical from the beginning that so many signatures were really invalid. Now our worst fears are being confirmed. We are finding subjective standards that vary from county to county. A signature that might be validated in one county might not be validated in the next county.

How many other disabled people like myself have been disenfranchised without even knowing it? How many senior citizens whose signatures have changed since they registered, perhaps decades ago? We don't yet know, but we're getting to the bottom of it. With such a thin margin between victory and defeat-less than 20,000 out of the 620,000 total signatures submitted-we are determined to make every valid signature count.

Maybe you don't care about this particular referendum or shy away from hot-button social issues. But you don't have to be a flaming conservative to care about the fundamental principle that grassroots democracy like referendum efforts should not be thwarted by subjective, unknowable criteria imposed at the whims of elections officials. That's something we should all be able to agree on-and something that is threatened by the present process.

Matt McReynolds is an attorney with the 
Pacific Justice Institute.
 
We intend to fight to have every valid signature counted. 

 

Donate today to help PFAS challenge those signatures improperly deemed invalid.


Make a contribution to Privacy For All Students today!

 
 

Paid for by

Privacy For All Students -Stop AB 1266

660 J Street, Ste., 250

Sacramento, CA 95814

ID# 1359959 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page last updated 06/18/14