Last year, California’s governor signed into law Assembly Bill 1266, which directs that in our public schools gender is something students choose, rather than something they are born with. If a student with male genitalia self-identifies as a female, he/she is allowed to choose to use the girls’ bathrooms and showers. The upshot of this law is to respect the feelings of those who are conflicted with their own gender identity at the expense of the privacy rights of the majority.
In response to this travesty, Privacy For All Students (PFAS) was formed and circulated a petition to get a referendum on the ballot, to give the people of California the opportunity to voice their opposition to this invasive social engineering.
504,760 signatures were needed to place the referendum on the 2014 ballot. PFAS garnered 619,346 signatures and submitted them to the State. PFAS even had to take the Secretary of State to court to force the full count of signatures in two counties. In its examination of the signatures, the State has only deemed 487,484 to be valid, disqualifying 131,857 signatures — a whopping 20% of all signatures submitted.
From their latest email update, PFAS writes, “The law allows for PFAS to now look at the rejected signatures and to challenge the results. Election officials are not making this easy for the PFAS representatives and attorneys that are seeking to examine the rejected signatures.
But we will not be bullied. We will fight to have fair standards, consistently applied. And we will demand that all valid signatures be counted.”
In their update, PFAS talks about some of the reasons that signatures have been thrown out:
If your signature on the petition looks different than your signature on a voter registration card or even a DMV record, then your signature may have been thrown out.
If the printing of your address looks like the printing of any other signer on that page, then your signature may have been thrown out.
If you left out or transposed any numbers in your address, then your signature may have been thrown out.
If you were mistaken about which county you live in, then your signature may have been thrown out.
Some believe that this is fair, that a signature and all accompanying information should be filled in perfectly by the signer. Nobody should help fill in the address (or if you had help, you should write a note on the petition that says so). There should be no leniency for age and infirmity or even cultural issues. If you signed the petition quickly or your signature has changed over the years, that is too bad.
That may sound good. We all want to be sure that the system is not manipulated and that all of the signatures counted are legitimate.
But it also looks like the goal is to find a reason to reject–not accept–signatures. And the results (more than one in five thrown out) show it.
We know that election officials are very lenient on who can vote. Efforts to assure the identity of voters has been fought throughout the country. But when citizens want to challenge a misguided law, suddenly these same election officials become experts at handwriting and printing and are not so interested in letting everybody be counted.
For now, it remains to be seen if PFAS will successfully challenge the signature count. The good news is that AB 1266 will not go into effect until the outcome of this challenge is determined. Gender selection proponents are pulling out all the stops to see that attitudes toward their agenda become sympathetic. There was even the recent story of the student who identified as a boy, who claimed to be assaulted in the boys’ bathroom by three intolerant students of the same gender. Turns out he/she made the whole thing up. But before that confession came out, I heard one radio talk show say the real problem was parents teaching their children that things like transsexuality and homosexuality are sins.
This LGTBQ ideologue insisted it isn’t a liberal versus conservative issue, but equated the teaching of children that certain sexual behaviors are sins with teaching hatred and intolerance. (Just a note on tolerance: It was invented by Christians, who were committed to treating with respect those with different religious convictions. But failing to call sin sin is not tolerance. It is the loss of all moral compass.) But that’s where our society is now — well, at least a large part of it. No individual sexual practice or preference or sense of gender identity is seen as wrong. And those of us in the morally conservative or traditional majority have no right to say what’s right or wrong, because, “It’s all good.”
The LGBTQ agenda is so important to its proponents that they don’t care about the 15 year-old girl, struggling with her normal (there, I said the word) issues of self-confidence about her own body, being forced to share space in close proximity to someone with a male body who wants to be a girl. AB 1266 cares only for the gender-challenged teen. Regular kids will be forced to have their privacy violated.
Privacy was established to protect children from embarrassment and prevent unwelcome and inappropriate scenarios from arising. In school settings, the practice of privacy and modesty were established to prevent teasing, bullying and other social behaviors that can victimize, humiliate or intimidate innocent children. What kind of insanity is it that is causing us to sit idly by, while traditional wisdom and prudence are so carelessly discarded? What do you suppose our Creator is thinking about all this? And what do you suppose he’s going to do about it? Shouldn’t that make a difference when we think about what we might do?
Additional information on AB 1266 can be found at http://www.privacyforallstudents.com
[UPDATE: Soon after posting this article, I received the email copied below. I think it demonstrates that the government in California doesn’t care about the words, “liberty and justice for all”.]
What Are they Hiding?
More than 131,000 referendum petition signatures were thrown out by elections officials throughout the State. That was more than one out of every five. But the law allows me as the proponent of the referendum to examine these signatures and to challenge them. And I am allowed to authorize others to help me with that task in the 58 counties.
We knew that his would be a difficult process.
We even figured that some employees in each county would take it personally as we search for mistakes, misapplications of the law or even deliberate rejection of valid signatures.
But PFAS did not expect the hostility and intimidation that we are now receiving.
In some cases, it has been a challenge just to get past the front door. In one county our entry was delayed for more than a week as election officials argued (without any basis) that it was their right to delay the examination for up to three weeks. They added that once they did allow the examination to begin, they could only handle two people at a time to review thousands of rejected signatures.
In many counties we have been allowed to examine the invalidated signatures so long as we do not touch any document. In one case, staff even tried to enforce their personal rule that we could not take notes or we had to sign detailed documents that limited our legal rights. No county yet has agreed to voluntarily allow PFAS to make the copies that we will need as evidence when these signatures are challenged in court.
Of course PFAS is standing up to these bullying tactics. We have a team of attorneys that is addressing the ever-changing rules and obstacles that are being introduced at each county.
But there is a level of bullying and intimidation that should not be tolerated. That level may have been reached yesterday in Sacramento where volunteers were pulled away from their examination and asked to wait in the lobby for more than three hours before they finally went home.
The reason they were pulled away from examining signatures was a sudden change in rules. As proponent of the referendum, I had provided authorization forms to our volunteers throughout the State. The form and my signature are copied. While that was sufficient for entry for several days, now Sacramento had decided that the signature needed to be “wet ink”. While they backed off later, they were arguing that I either need to be there in person or have hard copy documents delivered. No FAX. (This was odd since these officials have been accepting and rejecting petition signatures by comparing these to electronic copies they have on file.)
That was a delaying obstacle, but the next revelation was pure intimidation. Sacramento election officials offered to give a list of those who were authorized and unauthorized to one of our volunteers. But first they had to make a copy for the ACLU. Apparently the ACLU had requested and Sacramento was giving them the names of each person authorized and not authorized to examine signatures.
Put another way, while elections officials were delaying the right to challenge signatures by making volunteers sit in a waiting room, there was no delay in delivering the names of those volunteers to an outside group.
Privacy For All Students began this fight a little more than six months ago with the simple notion that forcing boys and girls to share a bathroom was bullying. Legislators with their sex separate facilities were bullying school children by forcing them into a situation that compromised the children’s privacy and safety. Now election officials and the ACLU have joined the gang of bullies that wants to intimidate anybody that objects to their radical social experiment.
Thank you for your support and prayers for those that are volunteering to examine these signatures and those who are working to take this challenge to court. If these bullying tactics and intimidation anger you, please donate to help us fight until we have the necessary number of validated signatures.
Privacy For All Students -Stop AB 1266
660 J Street, Ste., 250
Sacramento, CA 95814