Sacramento Democrats besides being bigots are also sexists. They passed a law that corporate boards of Directors must have an equal number of males and females. This does get confusing when you realize that transgenders could be listed as either. Or after getting on a board, a member decides to declare themselves a different gender how are they counted.
Finally, a judge ruled this is totally unconstitutional—it is discriminatory. That means companies will be able to go back and find the best PERSON for the position? Why didn’t the Democrats add to the bill, mandating an equal number of males and females to play basketball, baseball or football? If they were serious, they would have made that addition.
Duffy Lewis wrote: The law’s “goal was not to boost California’s economy, not to improve opportunities for women in the workplace nor not to protect California’s taxpayers, public employees, pensions and retirees. … The Court found the evidence offered by defense (the state) … demonstrated that the Legislature’s actual purpose was gender-balancing, not remedying discrimination.”
California is crazy—finally a judge who is honest and serious.
California’s progressive laws take a tumble in the courts
BY EMILY HOEVEN, CalMatters, 5/17/22
IN SUMMARY
California laws push progressive policies, but the courts push back, most recently a gender diversity mandate in corporate boardrooms.
As California pushes the envelope with progressive, first-in-the-nation policies, the courts are pushing back.
The latest casualty: a controversial law requiring all publicly held companies headquartered in the Golden State to have at least one woman on their board of directors.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy Lewis on Friday declared the law unconstitutional, ruling that it violates the equal protection clause of California’s constitution by explicitly distinguishing between individuals on the basis of gender, CalMatters economy reporter Grace Gedye writes.
- Duffy Lewis wrote: The law’s “goal was not to boost California’s economy, not to improve opportunities for women in the workplace nor not to protect California’s taxpayers, public employees, pensions and retirees. … The Court found the evidence offered by defense (the state) … demonstrated that the Legislature’s actual purpose was gender-balancing, not remedying discrimination.”
- Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis tweeted: “Thanks to (the law), the number of women directors on California boards went from just 766 in 2018 to 1,844 just 3 years later. It’s disappointing to see this set back for such an effective tool to help us achieve equal representation.”
- But the decision’s practical implications are limited, David Levine, a UC Hastings Law professor, told Grace. During the trial, state officials acknowledged they hadn’t been fining companies for breaking the law and had no plans to begin doing so.
- Secretary of State Shirley Weber announced Tuesday that her office plans to appeal the ruling, saying the decision would “allow systemic gender discrimination to create an impenetrable wall which excludes women from the State’s most influential boardrooms.”
The ruling comes about a month after another Los Angeles County Superior Court judge struck down a similar law requiring publicly held companies headquartered in California to have at least one board member from an “underrepresented community” — including those who identify as LGBTQ, Black, Latino, Asian American, Pacific Islander or Native American.
And it comes just a few days after a federal appeals court panel ruled unconstitutional California’s ban on the sale of semiautomatic weapons to adults under age 21.
Meanwhile, other high-profile California laws are pending before the U.S. Supreme Court — whose conservative majority has repeatedly served as a political foil for Gov. Gavin Newsom.
- Justices agreed earlier this year to hear a challenge to a voter-approved ballot measure requiring pork sold in California to come from pigs raised under conditions that animal rights advocates say are more humane.
- And a group of California Catholic archdioceses and dioceses have asked the nation’s highest court to review their case against a state law that reopened a window for survivors of childhood sexual abuse to file legal claims against their alleged perpetrators, regardless of when the alleged abuse occurred.
Another court test could soon follow if state lawmakers pass a Newsom-sponsored bill that co-opts the structure of Texas’ abortion ban by giving private Californians the right to sue manufacturers, sellers and distributors of illegal assault weapons, “ghost” guns and certain other firearms. Guns rights advocates have already voiced suspicions that such a law could be unconstitutional.
