A group working on a fall ballot initiative that would limit the rights of transgender students lost a round in court Monday when a judge sided with the state in its description of the measure.
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Stephen Acquisto ruled that Attorney General Rob Bonta’s title, “Restricts Rights of Transgender Youth,” is a fair description of the initiative, which would require schools to notify parents if a student identifies as transgender, ban gender-affirming care for those under 18 and place other limits on students who identify as a gender other than what they were assigned at birth.
The ruling is a setback for the group, dubbed Protect Kids California, as it tries to meet a May 28 deadline to collect 550,000 signatures to qualify for the fall ballot. The group has so far raised just over 200,000 signatures, organizers said.
Protect Kids California, led by Roseville school board member Jonathan Zachreson, put forth the initiative in November, calling it the “Protect Kids of California Act,” but a day after the group filed its paperwork with the Secretary of State, Bonta gave the initiative a new name and summary. The new name, Restricts Rights of Transgender Youth, and description made it harder to collect signatures and donations, Zachreson said, leading the group to sue for a name they said would be more reflective of the initiative’s goals.
But Long Beach Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal’s Assembly Bill 2351 is coming into conflict with California’s recent reforms intended to prevent students of color from being expelled and suspended at disproportionate rates.
The ACLU and other social justice organizations oppose Lowenthal’s bill. The bill’s critics told the Assembly Education Committee earlier this month at the bill’s first hearing that giving school administrators authority to punish students for behavior that occurs off campus could result in the return of “racially biased and disparate” punishment that puts students on a “school-to-prison pipeline.”
Lowenthal told the committee that as a socially-conscious Democrat, he previously couldn’t “imagine a scenario where I’m on a different side” from the ACLU, but he said his daughter’s experience highlighted why the law needs to change.
“Only a decade ago, school bullying ended once you got home and were safe,” he said. “Today, many of these activities are now taking place online, off campus, in the digital ether, and outside regular school hours, and there is nowhere and no time that our kids are truly safe.”
The April 10 decision is designed to protect California’s dwindling salmon populations after drought and water diversions left river flows too warm and sluggish for the state’s iconic Chinook salmon to thrive.
Salmon abundance forecasts for the year “are just too low,” Marci Yaremko, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s appointee to the Pacific Fishery Management Council, said last week. “While the rainfall and the snowpacks have improved, the stocks and their habitats just need another year to recover.”
State and federal agencies are now expected to implement the closures for ocean fishing. Had the season not been in question again this year, recreational boats would likely already be fishing off the coast of California, while the commercial season typically runs from May through October.
In addition, the California Fish and Game Commission will decide next month whether to cancel inland salmon fishing in California rivers this summer and fall.
The closure means that California restaurants and consumers will have to look elsewhere for salmon, in a major blow to an industry estimated in previous years to be worth roughly half a billion dollars.
“It’s catastrophic,” said Tommy “TF” Graham, a commercial fisherman based in Bodega Bay who now drives a truck delivering frozen and farmed salmon and other fish. “It means another summer of being forced to do something you don’t want to do, instead of doing something you love.
Now California has a new plan to give them opportunities for the kinds of extracurricular activities that can build character and community.
It’s included in a proposed revision to how the state pays for foster care that’s intended to make more money available to high-needs kids. Youth advocates are especially enthusiastic about the funding for extracurricular activities, which would come in the form of a monthly stipend of at least $500.
“These kids are always underfunded,” said Brian Blalock, senior directing attorney at the Youth Law Center. “And especially when the kids are with grandma and the kids are with relatives, often on fixed income. It’s where we most want these young people as a system, and as a consequence, grandma’s maxing out credit cards to keep the grandbaby in basketball and dance and tutoring.”
The California Department of Social Services put forward the proposal last month, as part of a restructuring to the state’s foster care payment system that was prompted by a 2015 law. Lawmakers are expected to consider it in budget deliberations this spring. By law, the state must adopt updated foster care pay rates by Jan. 1, although the changes would not roll out until 2026.
If implemented, the restructuring could have an outsized impact in Humboldt County, which has some the highest rates of children in foster care in California, with 13.8 children in foster care per 1,000 in 2018, per the nonprofit kidsdata.org. And while the number of children entering foster care had declined steadily statewide between 2000 and 2018, it almost doubled in Humboldt County over that timeframe, reaching more than 400 youth aged zero to 20 living in foster care in 2018, the last year for which data is available on the site. According to the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services, though, the local foster youth population peaked in 2019 at 432, the highest point in 23 years, but had decreased 35 percent by July of 2023.
After dropping during the pandemic, California’s emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other climate-warming gases increased 3.4 percent in 2021, when the economy rebounded.
The increase puts California further away from reaching a target mandated under state law: emitting 40 percent less in 2030 than in 1990 — a feat that will become more expensive and more difficult as time passes, the report’s authors told CalMatters.
“The fact that they need to increase the speed of reduction at about three times faster than they’re actually doing — that does not bode well,” said Stafford Nichols, a researcher at Beacon Economics, a Los Angeles-based economics research firm, and a co-author of the annual California Green Innovation Index released today.
“As we get closer to that 2030 goal, the fact that we’re further off just means that we have to decrease faster each year.”