News
Anti-trans referendum won’t make 2014 California ballot
Opponents of law found to be 17,276 short of valid names
Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law that says schools must allow trans students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms and play on sports teams that match their gender identification. (Photo public Domain)
Despite the efforts of anti-transgender groups, a referendum on a law allowing California students to participate in student activities in accordance with their gender identity won’t appear before state voters in 2014.
On Monday, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen announced via Twitter that the signature check on the referendum for the law, known as the School Success & Opportunity Act, didn’t yield enough valid signatures to place the measure on the state ballot. A spokesperson for the office confirmed for the Blade the measure failed to qualify.
After a signature-check process that lasted months, state officials found opponents of the law submitted 487,484 valid names — which is 17,276 short of the necessary 504,760 names to qualify. They submitted 619,387 names, but 131,903 were deemed invalid.
The law, signed by California Gov. Jerry Brown on Aug. 13, requires California public schools to respect students’ gender identity and ensures transgender students have access to school activities, facilities and sports teams in accordance with their gender identity. But critics say it violates the rights of students who may feel uncomfortable sharing facilities with someone of a different biological sex.
LGBT advocates responded to the news by saying the law, which went into effect Jan. 1, ensures all students, including those who are transgender, can do well in school.
Masen Davis, executive director of the San Francisco-based Transgender Law Center, said the law fosters a positive environment for students in California schools.
“This law gives schools the guidelines and flexibility to create an environment where all kids have the opportunity to learn,” Davis said. “We need to focus on creating an environment where every student is able to do well and graduate. This law is about doing what’s best for all students — that’s why it’s supported by school boards, teachers, and the PTA.”
The Transgender Law Center is part of a coalition known as the Support All Students campaign, which consists of nearly 100 state and national organizations including Equality California, National Center for Lesbian Rights, ACLU of California, Gay-Straight Alliance Network, the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center and Gender Spectrum.
Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said the failure of the referendum to qualify for the ballot reflects the growing support for transgender rights.
“The forces of discrimination tried to go after California’s LGBT young people, and it’s a sign of our progress that they fell short of their goal,” Griffin said. “Yet unfortunately there are groups out there that are actively working to make the lives of LGBT youth harder. This law does nothing more than safeguard transgender students from being excluded and ensures all students are provided the same opportunities – regardless of gender identity.”
The lack of insufficient valid signatures to place the measure on the ballot isn’t surprising. John O’Connor, executive director of Equality California, predicted in November that it was “unlikely, [but] it’s not impossible” for the measure to qualify given the signature validation rate at that point.
Enough signatures deemed valid last month after a randomized spot-check was conducted to trigger a full count of all of the signatures acquired in the 58 counties. But, as revealed on Monday, the full count revealed the anti-trans campaign had failed to gather enough names to put the issue up for referendum.
Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, nonetheless vowed in a statement to continue the fight against the trans student law through other means.
“Make no mistake, Pacific Justice Institute is committed to protecting the privacy of children,” Dacus said. “We are ready to review and challenge every signature that was not counted towards the referendum of this impudent and in-your-face bill. Our children’s privacy is worth doing all that we can.”
The statement says the Privacy for All Students, the coalition behind the referendum effort, has a right to review and appeal to the courts each of the around 131,000 signatures that were rejected. Additionally, the organization “to defend any child who has their privacy rights violated” because of the trans law.
It’s also still possible for opponents of the law to repeal it through a separate ballot initiative process different from the referendum process. But the deadline has passed for such a measure to qualify for the 2014 ballot, so the soonest that would be is 2016. A statutory ballot initiative would require 504,760 signatures to qualify for the ballot; a constitutional amendment would require 807,615 names.
Erik Olvera, spokesperson for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said the odds aren’t favorable for path anti-trans groups have to strip the student law from the books.
“They would have to do an initiative or go to the legislature — both very hard,” Olvera said.
District of Columbia
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
Two celebrations of life are planned for Sean Christopher Bartel, 48, who was found deceased on a hiking trail in Argentina on or around March 15. Bartel began his career as a television news reporter and news anchor at stations in Louisville, Ky., and Evansville, Ind., before serving as Senior Video Producer for the D.C.-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union from 2013 to 2024.
A memorial gathering is planned for Friday, April 10, 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. at the IBEW International Office (900 7th St., N.W.), according to a statement by the DC Gay Flag Football League, where Bartel was a longtime member. A celebration of life is planned that same evening, 6-8 p.m. at Trade (1410 14th St., N.W.).
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
HRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
Risking it all for love during World War II
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
