Today is the day that Privacy For All should be submitting the signatures required to qualify the Personal Privacy Protection Act for the November 2016 ballot. Unfortunately we fell short of the signatures needed.
While we are extremely disappointed, we know that we gave this effort our best and "left it all on the field".
Please be encouraged that throughout this we've educated many new churches on their role in the political arena, equipped churches to share this message with their members, registered new voters, and educated the public on this issue. Though we didn't reach our ultimate goal, much was accomplished. You can be proud of that.
Finally, while none of us wants to think about another initiative drive, we assume that someday a measure like the PPPA will qualify for the ballot not just in California but in other states throughout the country.
Below is the press release we sent out today.
Personal Privacy Protection Act
Privacy advocates that had been collecting signatures to place the Personal Privacy Protection Act before California voters announced Monday that they would not have enough signatures to qualify the initiative for the 2016 ballot.
"There is a strong desire to keep bathrooms sex separate among a segment of California voters," said Gina Gleason, a spokesperson for Privacy For All. "But much of California is still being introduced to the issue."
In 2013, the coalition then known as Privacy For All Students, collected approximately 620,000 signatures in an effort to turn back AB 1266, signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown in August of that year. Elections officials eventually rejected 131,857 of the submitted signatures leaving PFAS short of the 504,760 signatures needed to qualify the referendum for the ballot and a vote by the public.
The 2013 effort is still making its way through the courts as PFAS asserts that many of the signatures were improperly rejected. Referendum proponents won the first round in court. In addition to their victory, the court forced the State to pay the legal fees of those favoring the referendum.
Ironically, had PFA gathered the same number it collected two years ago and deducted all rejected signatures, it would have a large surplus of signed petitions to submit due to a lowered threshold.
Voters can place a referendum or an initiative on the California ballot by submitting a number of signatures determined by a formula based on voter turnout in the most recent election of a governor. In 2013 elections officials stated that the coalition had submitted 487,484 signatures. Low voter turnout in the 2014 California governor race resulted in voter ballot issues requiring only 365,880 signatures to qualify.
According to privacy advocate Karen England, "There is no singular cause for the shortage of signatures. Certainly the holiday season is not the best time to make a final push with petitions, but we just did not find the same urgency to enact a new law today as there was two years ago to overturn a law scheduled to be enacted in a matter of weeks."
Apparently PFA also had difficulty differentiating between the 2013 and the 2015 petition drives as many declined to sign current petitions because they mistakenly believed they had already signed.
"We are disappointed that this measure will not be on the 2016 ballot, but our efforts to protect privacy in bathrooms, locker rooms and showers will continue," said Gina Gleason. "The legal action to count all ballot signatures submitted in 2013 continues, we expect to see lawsuits by those who have had their privacy violated, and we assume that a measure like the Personal Privacy Protection Act will qualify for the ballot in the future."
PFA has compassion for those that believe biology has betrayed them. But they oppose allowing individuals to use bathrooms, locker rooms and showers based on gender identity as opposed to biological sex.
###
|
