Calif. Group Launches Ballot Initiative to Protect Children from LGBT Ideology

In recent months, there’s been substantial increase in the evidence that gender transition procedures are not safe for children. As such, parents around the world have become a focal point in the war over gender politics as they push to keep their kids safe from LGBT ideology — particularly within the school system.

One example of this push is a group of concerned parents in California. Protect Kids California (PKC) is focused on protecting children from extreme LGBT ideology, which is why the group recently “launched a ballot initiative for common sense policies that promote children’s well-being,” said Joseph Backholm, Family Research Council’s senior fellow for Strategic Engagement and Biblical Worldview, on Tuesday’s episode of “Washington Watch.”

Joining in on the discussion of this initiative was Jonathan Zachreson, who serves on the executive team at PKC and as a member of the Roseville City School Board. According to the PKC website, the ballot initiative, otherwise known as Protect Kids California Act, is meant to “require parent notification from school,” “protect girls sports,” and “prevent child sterilization.” PKC also put out a legal petition to promote the act and increase its chances of being an “initiative on the November 2026 ballot.” However, their efforts have already faced obstacles.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) renamed the initiative as “Restricts Rights of Transgender Youth” — an adjustment Zachreson emphasized is heavily “biased.” Nonetheless, as Backholm explained, “a California state judge sided with the attorney general, and his description of the initiative, which will now appear on the ballot.” The judges conclusion, Zachreson contended, was “completely” wrong.

He went on to describe how PKC had “submitted evidence that … showed that the word ‘restricts’ is biased, and that a single word can” effect whether a particular ballot measure will succeed or not. However, their evidence was denied by the judge. “On top of that,” he continued, the attorney “included language in the summary that just makes up information about our measure,” which misrepresents their cause. “We are disappointed in the outcome,” he said, “and look forward to options of how we can address this in the future.”

Backholm posed the question: “How unusual is it for the attorney general to change the ballot title this severely on an initiative?” To which Zachreson implied the drastic change is “pretty brazen.” He continued, “I mean, … other attorneys general in the past have done this. … [T]he fact that there is not just bias, but … false information in the title and summary, is, I think, unprecedented.” However, Zachreson said that this is why he believes PKC has a “good case,” which may help them in “presenting … [it] further along in the courts.”

Backholm further noted that state law, “presumably in California, says that the ballot title must be unbiased so that the voters can get an objective description of what the ballot title would do,” which makes it “important to point out the fact that the language the attorney general chose is not neutral and is, in fact, biased against the measure itself.” Zachreson added, “There’s language in the statute … that … outlays how the title and summary should be derived from the attorney general. And it includes it has to be factual, it has to cover the chief points of the initiative, and not be prejudicial.” But “all three of those things … the attorney general did with our title and summary,” he asserted.

PKC is looking to appeal the revised title and has requested an extension to their original May 28 deadline “along with a title and summary change,” he expressed. “But ultimately the attorney general is doing everything that he can to combat us.” But when it comes to “the position of the public,” as Backholm put it, Zachreson said “most people support this, including Democrats.”

He concluded, “[R]eally, it’s just a fringe few [that] happen to have control of our legislature that is driving … these policies in California. But the California voters can, and I do expect will, change our policies if we ever can get to that.”