900138
Bumper Crop!
Sacramento, rocked by political and financial crises, nevertheless passed an impressive array of civil rights and civil liberties bills – some of historic importance. Opponents of the measures spoke on the record and supporters, off, to the effect that the session was dramatically shaped by the recall and by political considerations.
Major ACLU-backed bills were signed into law, including a comprehensive domestic partner rights package (AB 205) that leapfrogged ahead of its expected timeline and a financial privacy package (SB 1), which, while watered down through a process of hard bargaining and compromise, at last grants Californians a degree of privacy for their private financial records. A comprehensive reform of sex education laws (SB 71) that drew a firestorm of protest from the right was likewise passed. And a controversial bill (SB 60) removing certain restrictions for driver’s licenses, which will allow hundreds of thousands of undocumented California drivers to drive legally and obtain insurance, also survived and garnered the Governor’s signature (see article on p. 6).
Several of the measures, including the driver’s license bill and the domestic partner rights expansion, are now being challenged.
Closer to Equality: Domestic Partners
AB 205 (Goldberg) Survived Assembly Cliffhanger And Surprised Insiders
On January 28, 2003, Assemblymember Jackie Goldberg, known for pushing the margins with her legislation, introduced AB 205, a comprehensive domestic rights package that would fast-forward California to a place very close to equality for domestic partners. Many advocates and insiders who support equality prepared themselves to think of the battle on AB 205 as a multi-year campaign.
“I truly believed that AB 205 would have its day, but we launched our ‘Closer to Equality’ campaign in support of the bill imagining a two- to four-year process,” said Christopher Calhoun, ACLU of Southern California Deputy Director of Public Policy.
“Boy, was I wrong. We made history in lightning speed.”
Calhoun pointed out that this is only the second time supporters of equality have been able to deliver more positive letters, calls, e-mails, and faxes in support of a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender civil rights bill than our opponents could deliver against it. ACLU of Southern California activists sent more than 7,700 faxes to their representatives and to the Governor in support of the bill. Savvy politicking by Equality California and Assemblymember Goldberg’s office, a well-timed report on fiscal savings, and passionate support from the LGBT lobby and allies helped the bill past its biggest hurdle, the Assembly floor vote.
AB 205 will take effect in January 2005, giving the 20,000 couples who signed up for a smaller roster of rights and responsibilities time to evaluate whether they will choose a status which will be virtually identical to marriage as far as state laws are concerned. The bill requires the state to notify every registered couple during this period. Over 4,000 provisions of California law reference marriage, and all but a handful now apply to domestic partners as well, in everything from child custody to community property.
The exceptions were driven by the practical challenge of passing the bill. Changes to Prop. 13 would have required a 2/3 majority, so a property tax reassessment exemption for spouses who survive one another won’t apply to domestic partners. Likewise, because the Legislative Analyst’s Office guessed that joint filing would not be revenue neutral, Assemblymember Goldberg pulled it from the bill. AB 205 will not affect federal laws and programs, including immigration law and Social Security.
Senator Pete Knight and an array of anti-gay groups have filed suit to challenge the bill in court, claiming that it violates Prop. 22, which defined marriage in California as being between a man and a woman. On October 2, Knight and Assemblymember Haynes, another notoriously anti-gay legislator, filed papers for a referendum to overturn AB 205. Opponents of AB 205 will have until December 21 to gather 373,816 signatures.
An Agitated Right Wing Fails to Block Sex Ed Reform
SB 71 (Kuehl) Attracted the Ire of Lou Sheldon, Who Couldn’t Make Distortions Stick
SB 71, signed into law on October 2, updates and streamlines California’s confusing maze of sex ed laws. But the bill wasn’t signed without controversy. It ran into trouble from the so-called “pro-family” groups like the Traditional Values Coalition and the Campaign for California Families, in part because it standardizes parental permission procedures, including for anonymous health surveys. The standardized process retains parental control, and at the same time makes securing consent less onerous and expensive, more effective, and more likely to capture parents’ actual desires.
The bill also sets standards for sex education, requiring that it be comprehensive, scientifically accurate, age appropriate, and free of bias. In all, an important, but hardly a revolutionary bill. It doesn’t, for instance, require sex education, which is not compulsory in California.
So why the dust-up?
According to Sheldon, the law amounted to “favorable indoctrination of homosexuality upon youth.” Randy Thomasson, another anti-gay activist, claimed that, under the bill, school children would “be led on sexual mind trips about losing their virginity, masturbation, homosexuality and cross-dressing…”
But the charges didn’t stick.
The ACLU, which sponsored the bill, released a report at a critical moment showing that California’s sex education laws are so confusing and inconsistent that 85% of California schools are not in compliance. In addition, advocates, who included the California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood, the California Nurses Association, and others, put together a compelling roster of studies showing that comprehensive education works better, including research from the Public Health Institute outlining clear steps that California needs to take in order to counter a boom in teen pregnancies, which are projected to grow by 23% over the next five years if no action is taken.
Finally, advocates highlighted substandard, biased materials that are used when there are no clear standards for sex education, materials which included statements such as:
“Is it fair to make the baby die because of a bad decision his or her parents made?” Sex Respect, Student Workbook, p.25.
“…if one continues to perform this act, the chamber with the bullet will ultimately fall into position under the hammer, and the game ends as one of the players dies. Relying on condoms is like playing Russian roulette.” Me, My World, My Future, revised HIV material, p. 258.
Kuehl’s team of staff and advocates confidently guided the bill through the controversy, and now, says Senator Kuehl, students will have the information they “need in order to cope with peer pressure and move into the responsibilities of adulthood.”
Privacy and Consumer Advocates Break Four-Year Financial Industry Blockade
SB 1 (Speier) Puts California At Forefront of Financial Privacy Protections
The bulk of the Assembly Banking Committee took a stroll in July when SB 1, Senator Jackie Speier’s financial privacy bill hit the Committee’s table. The Consumer Federation of California dubbed them “Corporate Democrats” for their unwillingness to listen to constituents and the not very subtle way their votes on banking and finance lined up with the interests of their deep-pocketed corporate donors. The group of Assemblymembers who walked includes Democrats Montañez, Calderon, Chavez, and Correa, as well as Republicans Bogh, Leslie, and Strickland.
The walk looked to doom SB 1, but two factors changed its fate. Senator Speier and advocates engaged in tough negotiations with banking and finance lobbyists – and came armed with the threat of a much stronger initiative, funded by Chris Larsen of E-Loan. And Governor Davis, who pledged his support only to pull it back in previous efforts to pass the bill, pledged his support again.
Industry signed off, and the bill sailed through the Assembly in August. Governor Davis signed it on August 27.
“It was damn hard,” said Valerie Small Navarro, of the ACLU’s Sacramento legislative office, who said the battle has taken four years. “But at least we have some semblance of privacy now for Californians’ personal bank account, loan, credit, mortgage, and other sensitive information.”
“Polls show that the public overwhelmingly wants privacy, but raw money politics stood in the way,” said Small Navarro. A February 2002 statewide poll by Evans McDonough Company, Inc., revealed 79% of Californians were “not at all comfortable” with the sale of information about their finances, and 62% agreed that existing privacy laws are “not strict enough.”
“Now we’re facing a fight at the federal level to prevent this law – even with all of its compromises – from being watered down by preemptive federal legislation.”
The Fair Credit Reporting Act bans states from creating stricter consumer protections, including privacy protections, than those passed at the federal level. The bill passed the House overwhelmingly. Senators Boxer and Feinstein are offering an amendment that would protect California’s new law in the Senate. Go to www.aclu-sc.org to take action.
“By voting for the Feinstein/Boxer amendment, Senators can empower all consumers to protect their private financial information,” said Jannell Duncan, Legislative Counsel for Consumers Union. “California’s recently enacted financial privacy law provides these protections to consumers residing in the state. But every person in the nation deserves these same rights.”
OCTOBER 2003
Download Issue as PDF
Jumpstarting Criminal Justice Reform in California
Cultural Conservatives are preparing to Use Same-Sex Marriage As a Wedge in 2004
Voting, OC-Style: Homeowners, But Not Renters, Given Vote in Bizarre, Throwback Election
Immigrants Advocates, Blocked at federal level, fight in states
