Anti-Gay State Laws Aid Push for CA Travel Ban Bill

The nationwide backlash against anti-gay laws recently passed in Georgia and North Carolina is aiding efforts to enact legislation in California that would ban taxpayer-funded travel to such states, LGBT advocates say.

Admonishment by a wide array of critics, from Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and sports leagues, led Georgia Governor Nathan Deal (R) to veto his state's homophobic legislation on Monday.

A similar onslaught of ridicule and scorn has been lodged at North Carolina after its governor, Republican Pat McCrory, last week signed into law a bill that overturns LGBT protections enacted by cities and other local jurisdictions in the Tar Heel State. It prompted San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee to ban city-funded travel to the state, with the mayors of Seattle and New York City, as well as New York's governor, following suit with their own travel bans.

Unlike his counterpart in the Peach State, McCrory has continued to defend his state's law, releasing a video message late Tuesday in which he decried other politicians from across the country for launching a "vicious, national smear campaign" against North Carolina. He also criticized his state's attorney general for announcing he would not defend the state's law in court; a number of civil liberties and LGBT rights groups filed a lawsuit against the legislation this week.

The travel bans and threats of corporate boycotts are particularly effective tools when petitioning governors because of the potential negative economic impacts, said Daniel Zingale, a gay man who was a top official in the administrations of former California Governors Gray Davis (D) and Arnold Schwarzenegger (R).

"I think you are right, economics are a powerful force. When a governor has to contemplate economic consequences for the states' residents, employees and customers, it makes a difference," said Zingale, a senior vice president for policy and communications for the California Endowment. "In this case it is a perfect storm of the loss of basic rights and the loss of economic opportunities, which I think is very compelling against these proposals."

The L.A.-based health care foundation sent letters last week to four corporations it holds stock in - Delta Air Lines, Home Depot, First Data, and HD Supply - that are based in Georgia and the governor's office warning it would pull its investments if the law were enacted.

It had sent a similar letter last year to Indiana's governor, who had signed into law an anti-gay bill but then worked with legislative leaders to amend it due to the hostile backlash it generated.

In a phone interview shortly after Deal had vetoed the legislation, Zingale told the Bay Area Reporter that the endowment was reviewing its several million dollars worth of holdings in companies based in North Carolina and would be mailing off letters next week to the governor and corporate leaders in the state.

"We did weigh in, first and foremost, on our fiduciary responsibilities because we are concerned about our investments in discriminatory environments," Zingale said about the endowment's decision to take a public stance on the anti-gay laws in Indiana and Georgia. "At the same time, what is really happening when you have the business community and state and local governments and religious institutions and athletics and the arts and labor, virtually every sector of our society saying discrimination is unacceptable, that is really the force at work here. There is a growing consensus across all sectors, who often don't agree on anything, that there is a bottom-line to discrimination."

CA Travel Ban Bill

The spotlight on the two Southern states comes as California lawmakers are being asked to adopt AB 1887, legislation authored by gay Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell) that would prohibit state-funded travel to any state with a law in effect that sanctions or requires discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

"The passage of such a regressive piece of legislation in North Carolina and the bill (that was) on the governor's desk in Georgia obviously show the need for AB 1887," said Jason Howe, spokesman for Equality California, the statewide LGBT advocacy organization that is co-sponsoring Low's legislation.

The Assembly Judiciary Committee is scheduled to take up the bill, for a second time, at its meeting next Tuesday, April 5. Low told the B.A.R. this week that the actions taken by the Southern states are precisely why he introduced the travel ban bill.

"It certainly demonstrates that, while in California we are a place of inclusion versus exclusion, discriminatory proposals are still occurring throughout the country," said Low. "I would also argue that much of the dialogue and discussion around the backlash on these proposals in some of these other states, like North Carolina and Georgia, came from our corporate partners. And so without vocal opposition from corporations, from politicians, from average citizens, I think these bills would have flown through the legislature to the governors' desks for his or her signature."

There continues to be debate over how Low's bill, which would also apply to both the University of California and California State University systems, would be overseen if implemented. It remains unclear which state official or agency would track anti-gay laws passed in other states and place them on a banned travel list.

(The bill would not apply to travel necessary for the enforcement of California law, to meet prior contractual obligations, or for the protection of public health, welfare, or safety.)

Low told the B.A.R. that the implementation questions would be answered as lawmakers review his bill.

"Along the process we have an opportunity to have discussions on implementation and what that looks like and who will be in charge of keeping track of such states that have these discriminatory laws in place," said Low.

While the bill has no registered opposition to it, answering the implementation questions is "the really tricky part," said EQCA legislative manager Jo Michael. The judiciary committee could vote next week to pass the bill on to the Assembly Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review, added Michael, where those questions could be further addressed.

The anti-gay legislation taken up in North Carolina, Georgia, and numerous other states this year is demonstrating the need for Low's bill, argued Michael.

"We have gotten to the point where it is clear to folks how important it is and how urgent it is to address what is going on in the country," said Michael.

While laws governing nonprofits bar the California Endowment from endorsing legislation, Zingale said it does support the intent behind Low's legislation.

"We do support the principal of state and local governments joining the fight against these discriminatory proposals," he said.

Low told the B.A.R. he has not gotten any indication from Governor Jerry Brown (D) on if he supports the bill.

"What I am pleased to see are additional municipalities and other jurisdictions have passed proactive language in support of the same legislative intent" as his bill, said Low.

Brown does not need to wait for the Legislature to send him AB 1887 to act. He could sign an executive order banning state-funded travel to North Carolina.

"I would be ecstatic if the governor signed an executive order stating as such," said Low. "Absent that, I believe that our role can also be part of the public dialogue to help make such an affirmative statement."

Spokespersons for Brown did not respond by press time to the B.A.R.'s questions on if he would issue such a ban, backs Low's bill, or has a preference for which state agency should be tasked with implementing it.

Local Travel Bans

By enacting his travel ban to North Carolina, Mayor Ed Lee's goal was "to have other cities follow suit and have a cumulative impact on the economy of North Carolina and their bigoted decision," Paul Henderson, a gay man who is the mayor's deputy chief of staff and director of public safety, told the B.A.R.

So far it has not convinced San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo or Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, who like Lee last year had banned city-funded travel to Indiana, to enact travel bans to North Carolina.

Schaaf's office did not respond to the B.A.R.'s request for comment, while a spokesman for Liccardo said the mayor would need to work with the city council to enact such a travel restriction. By press time Wednesday, Liccardo's office had not said if it would do so.

As it turns out, taxpayer-funded travel to North Carolina, other than for a few days earlier this month, has been banned in Santa Clara County since last June. In response to the Indiana bill, the Board of Supervisors, at the request of gay Supervisor Ken Yeager, adopted its own travel restriction to states with anti-LGBT laws.

In addition to North Carolina and Indiana, the county also banned employees from traveling to Arkansas and Michigan.

"In an informal Internet search, I found that many of the states listed passed 'religious freedom acts' that included clauses to allow discrimination based on religious objection including the Michigan adoption bill," explained Maribel Mart'nez, manager of the county's Office of LGBTQ Affairs, in an email.

According to the office of County Executive Jeffrey V. Smith, only one travel request has been denied since the travel ban policy went into effect. In August Medical Examiner Dr. Matrina Schmidt had requested $2,606 in order to attend the 2015 National Association of Medical Examiners Annual Meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina, in October. Smith denied the funding due to the county's travel ban law, and the supervisors approved his decision.

After the B.A.R.'s inquiries regarding Santa Clara County's travel ban policy, the Office of the County Counsel this week announced it had updated the list of banned states. As of March 11, Indiana and Michigan were removed.

North Carolina, which had also been removed from the list as of that date, was returned to it as of March 28. Arkansas remains on the list, while Mississippi and Tennessee were added to it on March 11.

Arkansas and Tennessee are on the list for having laws similar to North Carolina's that prohibit cities and towns from adopting local anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBT people. A 2000 statute that bans adoption by same-sex couples is why Mississippi is listed.

"As you can see, since its passage, some states have been removed while other states have been added. This list is reviewed on a regular basis by county counsel, with special attention given during peak activity times for state legislatures," wrote Mart'nez. "Should any other state pass similar laws to those already listed or any other law that discriminates against LGBTQ individuals or communities, it will be added to the list upon its passage."

Low, who's hometown of Campbell is in Santa Clara County, said the county's travel ban to states with anti-LGBT laws shows such a policy is workable and enforceable.

"This is nothing new," he said in reference to AB 1887. "But again, we join in the conversation that we will not use taxpayer dollars to subsidize discrimination."