Last year, a California judge threw out a lawsuit from a lawyer alleging that Attorney General Rob Bonta showed bias and abused his authority in renaming a proposed ballot measure the “Restrict the Rights of Transgender Youth Initiative.”

That initiative was initially called the “Protect Kids of California Act.”

It would have taken away transgender children’s right to access gender-affirming medical care or gender-segregated school facilities (such as bathrooms) or activities (such as sports).

It also would have required school staff to inform parents if their child requests to go by a different name or set of pronouns while at school. The measure failed to gain enough signatures from registered voters to go on the ballot.

Now, the lawyer — Nicole C. Pearson — and the libertarian legal support group Liberty Justice Center have filed a brief before the California Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in siding with Bonta and dismissing the suit.

The brief argues that Bonta’s assigned ballot initiative title and summary were false and misleading, that Bonta mischaracterized the measure by saying that it did not provide for the safety of students, and that Bonta falsely said that the measure would outlaw the social transitioning (such as using requested names and pronouns) of transgender youths as well as medical transitioning (such as taking hormones or puberty blockers).

“Public officials are obligated to uphold the law at all times — not just when it advances their personal biases. As California’s Attorney General, Bonta has a duty to provide a neutral title and summary to all proposed ballot initiatives, even those he disagrees with. He failed Californians and violated state law by prioritizing political grandstanding above that duty,” said Liberty Justice Center Senior Counsel Emily Rae in a statement.

The Bee has reached out to Bonta’s office for a response, and this story will be updated if one is received.

Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Stephen Acquisto in his ruling wrote that Bonta’s summary “accurately and impartially stated that the proposed measure ‘restricts rights’ of transgender youths.”

“The proposed measure objectively ‘restricts rights’ of transgender youth by preventing the exercise of their existing rights. ‘Restricts rights of transgender youth’ is an accurate and impartial description of the proposed measure,” the judge wrote.

The judge noted that the term “protect” used in the initiative’s original title was “subjective and debatable,” and that it “appears to be the type of advocacy disallowed in a title and summary by Elections Code...”

The judge also agreed with Bonta that the initiative did not provide an exception for student safety, writing that the initiative “has no applicability to principals, vice principals, or teachers, all of whom would be required to notify parents without exception for student safety.”

The judge noted that even in cases where the law would prohibit a school counselor from notifying parents due to concern for the student’s safety, “the parents would still receive notification from other school officials under the proposed measure.”