اینترنت

برچسب: signatures

  • School board opponents in Orange Unified turn in signatures for recall election

    School board opponents in Orange Unified turn in signatures for recall election


    Packed crowd anticipates discussion on Orange Unified Parental Notification Policy on Sept. 8, 2023.

    Credit: Mallika Seshadri / EdSource

    Organizers seeking the ouster of two conservative members of the Orange Unified school board announced last week they had collected more than enough signatures to put the recall to a vote in the next several months.

    The effort seeks the recall of board President Rick Ledesma and board member Madison Klovstad Miner, who was elected last November after defeating 22-year incumbent Kathryn A. Moffat by 0.2% — 221 votes out of 61,845 votes cast. Her election was pivotal in establishing a four-member conservative majority that had run on a uniform platform of parental rights. Ledesma and Miner had the financial backing of pro-conservative political action committees, including the Lincoln Club of Orange County, and the support of Jack Hibbs, an influential politically active pastor of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, an evangelical megachurch.

    The new majority’s first action was to fire Gunn Marie Hansen, the district’s popular superintendent, with one day’s notice during the Christmas break, when Hansen was abroad. During the heated four-hour school board meeting, several angry parents vowed a recall election, but it took several months to organize a campaign. Although Hansen was fired without cause, Ledesma later said that under Hansen, the district was “focusing too much on the social politics of education,” and the board planned to revisit policies related to sex education, student equity and ethnic studies.

    The recall campaign is also running on a theme of fiscal responsibility, pointing to the cost of terminating Hansen’s contract, which, with vacation and benefits, was $505,000.

    Last month, the conservative majority made Orange Unified the sixth California school district to require school officials to adopt a gender notification policy, requiring school officials to tell parents and guardians if their child engages in activities designed for the opposite sex or changes gender pronouns.

    Darshan Smaaladen, recall committee co-chair and chief organizer, said the campaign had submitted more than 18,300 signatures — about 5,000 more than the 13,046 required. Organizers had to collect at least 10% of registered voters in the school district.

    Smaaladen, a parent of two graduates and one current Orange Unified student, said she was “elated” by the number of signatures collected and “looks forward to more knowledgeable public voting on the issues in future elections.” She said the signature-gathering was done mainly by volunteers attending festivals, stationing outside schools and going door to door. Three hundred volunteer signature collectors signed a code of ethics, committing to acting in good faith and staying true to the campaign message, she said. Some teachers, many of whom live in the district, were among the canvassers.

    “The Orange Unified Education Association is happy to see the petitions to be submitted weeks earlier than the deadline, and we see this as a statement of strength and support by the public for this recall,” said union President Greg Goodlander.

    Paid solicitors were hired to ensure meeting a Nov. 8 deadline and collected 2,000 signatures, Smaaladen said.

    In a lengthy email responding to EdSource’s request for a comment on the recall, district board member Miner wrote, “It’s essential to note that protecting students is my sole purpose, and the radical recall movement has made it clear that their quest for power over the children is nothing more than a strong political maneuver to influence and shape the children of OUSD. This has nothing to do with protecting or educating children.” (Go here for the full response.)

    The Orange County Registrar of Voters must now validate the signatures, initially examining a large random sample, then doing a full certification, if needed. The Orange Unified school board must choose a date for the recall vote. Smaaladen said she hopes the board chooses the March state primary election; tying the recall vote to that election will save the district about $1 million from the cost of holding an election on a separate date, she said.

    Located near Disneyland, Orange Unified draws from diverse neighborhoods in five cities plus unincorporated areas of Orange County; half of its 26,000 students are from low-income familes; 57% are Latino and a quarter are white.

    According to Ballotpedia, only about 1 in 5 recall campaigns nationally have qualified for the ballot since 2009. Of those, fewer than half have unseated board members.

    This effort could gain national attention and draw six-figure contributions on both sides. California Republicans and conservative PACs have targeted school board elections to outflank Democratic majorities in the Legislature, promote school choice, weaken teacher unions and oppose LGBTQ+ education. Democratic donors and the California Teachers Association in turn will weigh whether to encourage this and similar recalls, assuming it qualifies for the ballot, by donating heavily.

    “Republicans have been talking about ratcheting up the fight on education policy for a few years. There have been some scattered skirmishes up until now, but this could be the all-out brawl that both sides have been anticipating,” said Dan Schnur, a longtime political observer who teaches political communications at the University of Southern California, UC Berkeley and Pepperdine University.

    A similar recall campaign is under way to unseat three politically conservative members in Temecula Valley Unified, including board President Joseph Komrosky, whom Gov. Gavin Newsom condemned for denigrating the assassinated gay activist Harvey Milk as a pedophile. On Wednesday, leaders of the League of United Latin American Citizens de Inland Empire and the local branch of the NAACP civil rights group announced they were joining the effort.  They have until Dec. 8 to turn in enough signatures to qualify.





    Source link

  • One Temecula Valley PAC submits signatures for Joseph Komrosky recall 

    One Temecula Valley PAC submits signatures for Joseph Komrosky recall 


    Temecula Valley Unified School District board member Joseph Komrosky.

    Credit: Temecula Valley Unified

    One Temecula Valley PAC has submitted 5,236 signatures to initiate a recall election against Temecula Valley Unified School District’s school board president, Joseph Komrosky — surpassing the requirement of 4,280 two days before Friday’s deadline. 

    The Registrar of Voters in Riverside County will now formally count and verify the legitimacy of the signatures to determine if the recall campaign will lead to an election. Jeff Pack, co-founder of One Temecula Valley political action committee — which aims to combat “a very real and dangerous threat to local governance posed by political and religious extremist views” — anticipates that the process will take a couple of months. 

    “We’re looking … forward to being this organization that demands good governance, and I think this is a great start,” Pack said. “I’m really proud.” 

    In its initial stages, the recall campaign was also gathering signatures for board members Jennifer Wiersma and Danny Gonzalez, who, with Komrosky, make up the board’s conservative majority. 

    Since their election in November 2022, the three have together banned critical race theory in the classroom, temporarily barred the Social Studies Alive! curriculum because its supplemental material mentioned LGBTQ+ activist Harvey Milk, fired former Superintendent Jodi McClay without cause and passed policies mandating that school officials notify parents if their child indicates they are transgender. 

    However, Pack said the campaign eventually decided to focus on Komrosky because his recall seemed to be the most likely, based on the number of signatures gathered for his recall. And flipping his seat alone would be enough to tip the board’s current majority. 

    Meanwhile, some community members have speculated that Gonzalez plans to leave the state altogether, noting that his house is currently on the market for sale. 

    Neither Komrosky nor Gonzalez responded to EdSource’s request for comment. Wiersma, who stated she may be able to respond, did not provide a comment by EdSource’s deadline. 

    The road to recall

    The effort to recall Komrosky, Wiersma and Gonzalez began early in June when Pack met a group of moms at a local duck pond. 

    The moms, who eventually formed the organization EnACT Temecula-Equity in Action, wanted to initiate a recall against Wiersma.  

    “Well, why don’t we just do all three? he told them “We’ll back you. We have money. We can get all this stuff together, get all the paperwork together and let’s do it.”

    The moms questioned his idea to start a recall for all three. 

    “Which one deserves to stay? Which one do you want to leave there?” Pack said he responded. “And nobody can answer that question.” 

    The recall effort began to gain steam, he said. And in one day, they had gathered the 35 signatures needed to file a notice of intent to recall for each board member. 

    In the months that followed, teachers and community members went door to door, gathering more signatures. They also stationed themselves at the duck pond during weekends. 

    Eventually, the recall effort also garnered support from organizations including the Temecula Valley Educators Association, the League of United Latin American Citizens Inland Empire chapter and the NAACP’s Southwest Riverside branch 1034. 

    “As educators, we’re all just hoping that the focus of the district can return to student performance, supporting learning environments to maximize how teachers can do their jobs,” said Edgar Diaz, the president of the Temecula Valley Educators Association. 

    He added that he’s “glad the community came out and supported” the recall, showing “that this is actually a community issue, not a teacher- or a union-driven issue.” 

    Reactions to the recall

    The recall effort has been met with mixed reactions from members of the community and beyond. 

    While Pack said there has been enthusiastic support for Komrosky’s recall, they were unable to gather the 3,987 signatures needed to get Wiersma’s on the ballot. 

    Pastor Tim Thompson of Evangelical 412 Church Temecula Valley — who has consistently stood by the board’s majority — has said he doubts a recall election will take place. 

    “If they get their way and this goes to an election, what we’re going to find is the same thing we found in the election cycle last period, is that the vast majority of people in the Temecula Valley support these three,” Thompson said. “They’re happy that they’re in there. They’re happy for the changes that they’re making.”

    Thompson also commended the current board for fulfilling their duty to “protect the youth in our community.” 

    Temecula Valley district board member Steven Schwartz, however, disagrees, saying most board decisions have been “political and not educational.” 

    As a member of the board minority, Schwartz said he has received mostly positive feedback from parents and community members who he said feel the same way as he does. 

    Meanwhile, he said many of the speakers who have voiced their support for the conservative majority at meetings do not come from the community. 

    “When you have people coming from outside disrupting meetings … calling people names, what is that supposed to prove?” Schwartz said. “What is that supposed to do for our children and for schools?” 

    Regardless of the outcome, Pack said he is proud of the effort and that the recall’s advocates were able to make history in Temecula. 

    “This is entirely volunteers that are local, and it’s really, really something that I don’t think this community has ever seen,” Pack said. “It’s a big growing-up moment, I think, for the city of Temecula.”

    Editors’ note: This story has been updated to correct a name’s spelling and revise the number of signatures needed to file the notice of intent to recall.





    Source link

  • Short of signatures for fall, organizers target California’s 2026 ballot for tightening transgender rights

    Short of signatures for fall, organizers target California’s 2026 ballot for tightening transgender rights


    Conservative groups and LGBTQ+ rights supporters protest outside the Glendale Unified School District offices in Glendale on June 6, 2023. Several hundred people gathered at district headquarters, split between those who support or oppose teaching that exposes youngsters to LGBTQ+ issues in schools.

    Credit: Keith Birmingham/The Orange County Register via AP

    California activists seeking to rein in transgender children’s rights to care and self-expression failed to place a trifecta of restrictions on the November ballot.

    The organization Students First: Protect Kids California started too late to consolidate their three separate initiatives into one, and its signature-gathering came up short of the 546,651 verifiable signatures that had to be collected within six months to make the presidential election ballot. The goal was to collect 800,000 signatures to be safe.

    But battles over transgender issues will continue to burn bright in courts, school districts and the Legislature. Despite a setback, initiative organizers were buoyed by the 400,000 signatures that thousands of volunteers collected. They are confident that they will attract more donations and enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot two years from now — and find more support than leaders in heavily Democratic California assume exists.  

    “We’re very confident that voters would pass this if it gets to the ballot box,” said Jonathan Zachreson, a Roseville City school board member and co-founder of Protect Kids California. “We gathered more signatures for a statewide initiative than any all-volunteer effort in the history of California.”

    The three-pronged initiative would:

    • Prohibit transgender female students in grades seven and up from participating in female sports while restricting gender-segregated bathrooms and locker room facilities to students assigned that gender at birth. The initiative would overturn a decade-old state law that requires schools to accommodate a student’s gender identity in their choice of sports and activities.
    • Ban gender-affirming health care for transgender patients under 18.
    • Require schools to notify parents if a student identifies as transgender through actions like switching a name or to a pronoun associated with a different gender, joining a sports team or using a bathroom that doesn’t match the student’s sex assigned at birth or school record.

    The last issue has sparked a firestorm within the past year.

    Last week, a Democratic legislator introduced a late-session bill that would preempt mandatory parental notification. Assembly Bill 1955, by Assemblymember Chris Ward, D-San Diego, would prohibit school districts from adopting a mandatory parental notification policy and bar them from punishing teachers who defy outing policies of LGBTQ+ students.

    Last year, Assemblymember Bill Essayli, R-Corona, introduced a bill that would require parental notification, but AB 1314 died in the Assembly Education Committee without getting a hearing. Committee Chair Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, reasoned the bill would “potentially provide a forum for increasingly hateful rhetoric targeting LGBTQ youth.”

    Ward cited surveys of transgender and gender nonconforming youths that found most felt unsafe or unsupported at home. In one national survey, 10% reported someone at home had been violent toward them because they were transgender, and 15% had run away or were kicked out of home because they were transgender.

    The California Department of Education has issued guidance that warns that parental notification policies would violate students’ privacy rights and cites a California School Boards Association model policy that urges districts to protect students’ gender preferences.

    But Zachreson argues that even if children have a right to gender privacy that excludes their parents, which he denies exists, students waive it through their actions.  “At school, their teachers know about it, their peers and volunteers know about it, other kids’ parents know about it —  and yet the child’s own parent doesn’t know that the school is actively participating in the social transition,” he said.

    In some instances, he said, schools are actively taking steps to keep name changes and other forms of gender expression secret from the parents.

    “What we’re saying is, no, you can’t do that. You have to involve the parents in those decisions,” he said.

    Ward responds that many teachers don’t want to be coerced to interfere with students’ privacy and gender preferences. “Teachers have a job to do,” he said. “They are not the gender police.”

    A half-dozen school districts with conservative boards, including Rocklin, Temecula Valley and Chino Valley, have adopted mandatory parental notification policies. Last fall, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued Chino Valley, arguing its policy is discriminatory. A state Superior Court judge in San Bernardino agreed that it violated the federal equal protection clause and granted a preliminary injunction. The case is on appeal.

    Last July, a judge for the U.S. District of Eastern California threw out a parent’s lawsuit against Chico Unified for its policy prohibiting disclosure of a student’s transgender status to their parent without the student’s explicit consent. The court ruled that it was appropriate for the district to allow students to disclose their gender identity to their parents “on their own terms.” Bonta and attorneys general from 15 states filed briefs supporting Chico Unified; the case, too, is on appeal.

    While some teachers vow to sue if required to out transgender students to their parents, a federal judge in Southern California sided with two teachers who sued Escondido Union School District for violating their religious beliefs by requiring them to withhold information to parents about the gender transition of children. The judge issued a preliminary injunction against the district and then ordered the return of the suspended teachers to the classroom.

    No California appellate court has issued a ruling on parent notification, and it will probably take the U.S. Supreme Court for a definitive decision. Essayli pledged to take a case there.

    The national picture

    Seven states, all in the deeply red Midwest and South, have laws requiring identification of transgender students to their parents, while five, including Florida and Arizona, don’t require it but encourage districts to adopt ther own version, according to the Movement Advancement Project or MAP, an independent nonprofit.

    Two dozen states, including Florida, Texas, and many Southern and Midwest states ban best-practice health care, medication and surgical care for transgender youth, and six states, including Florida, make it a felony to provide surgical care for transgender care. Proponents cite the decision in March by the English public health system to prohibit youths under 16 from beginning a medical gender transition to bolster the case for tighter restrictions in the United States.  

    California has taken the opposite position; it is one of 15 like-minded states and the District of Columbia with shield laws to protect access to transgender health care. They include New York, Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Massachusetts.

    Twenty-five states have laws or regulations banning the participation of 13- to 17-year-old transgender youth in participating in sports consistent with their gender identification.

    Not one solidly blue state is among those that have adopted the restrictions that Protect Kids California is calling for. But Zachreson and co-founder Erin Friday insist that contrary to the strong opposition in the Legislature, California voters would be open to their proposals. They point to favorable results in a survey of 1,000 California likely voters by the Republican-leaning, conservative pollster Spry Strategies last November.

    • 59% said they would support and 29% would oppose legislation that “restricts people who are biologically male, but who now identify as women, from playing on girl’s sports teams and from sharing facilities that have traditionally been reserved for women.”
    • 72% said they agreed, and 21% disagreed that “parents should be notified if their child identifies as transgender in school.”
    • 21% said they agreed, and 64% disagreed that “children who say they identify as transgender should be allowed to undergo surgeries to try to change them to the opposite sex or take off-label medications and hormones.”

    The voters surveyed were geographically representative and reflective of party affiliation, but not demographically: The respondents were mostly white and over 60, and, in a progressive state, were divided roughly evenly among conservatives, moderates and liberals.

    Two versions of protecting children

    Both sides in this divisive cultural issue say they’re motivated to protect children. One side says it’s protecting transgender children to live as they are, without bias and prejudice that contribute to despair and suicidal thoughts. The other side says it’s protecting kids from coercion to explore who they aren’t, from gender confusion and exposure to values at odds with their family’s.

    Zachreson and Friday wanted to title their initiative “Protect Kids of California Act of 2024.” But Bonta, whose office reviews initiatives’ titles and summaries, chose instead “Restrict Rights of Transgender Youth. Initiative Statute.” Zachreson and Friday, an attorney, appealed the decision, but a Superior Court judge in Sacramento upheld Bonta’s wording, which he said was accurate, not misleading or prejudicial.

    Zachreson is appealing again. A more objective title and summary would make a huge difference, he said, by attracting financial backing to hire signature collectors and the support and resources of the California Republican Party, which declined to endorse the initiative. That was a strategic mistake in an election year when turnout will be critical.

    ”The people who support the initiative are passionate about it,” he said.

    Political observer Dan Schnur, who teaches political communications at USC, UC Berkeley and Pepperdine University, agreed that the gender debate could have motivated Republicans and swing voters to go to the polls. 

    “There’s no question that the Attorney General’s ballot language had a devastating effect on the initiative’s supporters, and it could have almost as much of an impact on Republican congressional candidates this fall,” he said.





    Source link