Existing law provides that a person in this state cannot be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, a state program or activity, as specified, on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, ethnic group identification, age, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation.

Existing law provides for officers and employees of the state, when away from their headquarters for state business, to receive travel expenses. Existing law prohibits a state agency and the Legislature from requiring any of its employees, officers, or members to travel to, or from approving a request for state-funded or state-sponsored travel to, any state that has enacted a law that voids or repeals, or that has the effect of voiding or repealing, existing state or local protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression or that has enacted a law that authorizes or requires discrimination against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, as specified.

Existing law excepts from these provisions travel that is required for specified purposes, including, among other things, to participate in meetings or training required to maintain grant funding and to complete job-related training necessary to maintain licensure or similar standards.

This bill also would exempt travel that is required to attend or to participate in a collegiate academic conference or competition, or a collegiate athletic event, and travel that is required to further recruitment of a prospective collegiate student athlete, from these provisions.

Date of Hearing: April 3, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2389

Author:(Harper) – As Introduced Ver:February 14, 2018

SUBJECT: Discrimination: state employees: travel

KEY ISSUE: Should state-funded travel for certain academic and athletic purposes be exempt from an existing statute that bans state-funded travel to states that discriminate against members of the LGBT Community?

SYNOPSIS

In 2016, in response to a series of laws enacted in other states that discriminated against persons based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the California Legislature enacted, and the Governor signed, AB 1887 (Chapter 687, Stats. 2016). In order to express California's strong opposition to these discriminatory laws and to show solidarity with the LGBT community, AB 1887 prohibited state agencies, including the Legislature, from requiring any person to travel to one of the offending states. It also prohibited any state agency from funding travel to such states, unless the travel was covered by one of the law's exceptions. AB 1887 provided that these restrictions did not apply to travel that is necessary for law enforcement or litigation purposes; travel that is required by pre-existing contractual, training, or grant-funding obligations; or any travel that is necessary to protect public health, welfare, or safety, as determined by the relevant state agency. This bill would expand the list of exemptions by authorizing state funding for travel to attend or participate in a collegiate academic conference of competition; to attend or participate in a collegiate athletic event; or to further recruitment of a prospective collegiate student athlete. As recent reports have demonstrated, AB 1887 applies to California's public colleges and universities, thus prohibiting state funding for faculty and student participation in academic or athletic events located in a targeted state. This bill would add three items to the already-existing list of exceptions. Specifically, this bill would allow state-funded travel for academic conferences and competitions, athletic events, and athletic recruiting. However, the exemptions in existing law apply only where travel is necessary to enforce California law, maintain federal and contractual obligations, or to otherwise protect public health, safety, or welfare. It is not clear that academic and athletic events, however important, rise to the same level of necessity. The bill is opposed by several LGBT rights organizations, who contend that the bill is unnecessary and will chip away at the important statement made by AB 1887. This bill is identical to AB 518, also by the author, which died in this Committee last year (the first year of this session) after the author requested that the bill be pulled from its scheduled hearing.

SUMMARY: Exempts travel to academic conferences and competitions, athletic events, and for purposes of athletic recruiting from an existing law that otherwise bans state-sponsored and state-funded travel to states that discriminate against the LGBTQ community, as specified.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that any state officer or employee of any state agency may confer with other persons, associations, or organizations outside of the state wherever it may be of assistance in the conduct of state business. Permits, to the extent that funds are authorized and available, reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses for travel outside of the state. Specifies that this section does not apply to legislators or their staff. (Government Code Section 11032.)
2. Provides, under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, that all persons within this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status, are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, or services of all business establishments of every kind whatsoever. Defines "sex" to include gender identity and gender expression. (Civil Code Section 51.)
3. Prohibits a state agency, including the Legislature, from requiring, sponsoring, or funding travel to any state that, as determined by the California Attorney General, has enacted a law that effectively voids or repeals a state or local protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, or that has enacted a law that authorizes or requires discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. Specifies that these restrictions shall remain in effect while any objectionable state law remains in effect. (Government Code Section 11139.8 (b).)
4. Provides that the restrictions in 3) above do not apply to travel required for the following purposes:
5. Enforcement of California law, including auditing and revenue collection.
6. Litigation.
7. To meet contractual obligations incurred before January 1, 2017.
8. To comply with requests by the federal government to appear before committees.
9. To participate in meetings or training required to obtain or maintain grant funding.
10. To complete job-required training necessary to maintain licenses, as specified.
11. To protect public health, welfare, or safety, as determined by the state entity that requires or funds the travel. (Government Code Section 1139.2 (c).)
12. Requires the California Attorney General to develop, maintain, and post on his or her Internet Web site a current list of states that, after June 26, 2015, have enacted a law described in 3) above. Specifies that it is the responsibility of each agency, department, board, authority, or commission to consult the list in order to comply with travel and funding restrictions imposed by the above provisions. (Government Code Section 11139.8 (e).)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: Under existing law, California prohibits any state agency (including boards, commissions, and the Legislature) from requiring, sponsoring, or funding travel to states that have enacted laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, or states that have enacted laws that effectively void or repeal state and local laws that expressly prohibit discrimination on such a basis. The Attorney General maintains and updates a list of states which fit these criteria, and state agencies are expected to consult the posted list when making travel decisions. Existing law exempts from these restrictions travel that is necessary for law enforcement or litigation purposes; travel that is required by pre-existing contractual, training, or grant-funding obligations; or any travel that is necessary to protect public health, welfare, or safety, as determined by the relevant state agency. This bill would expand the list of exemptions by authorizing state funding for travel to attend or participate in a collegiate academic conference of competition; to attend or participate in a collegiate athletic event; or to further recruitment of a prospective collegiate student athlete. The author believes that these reasonable exemptions will allow students and faculty to participate in events that are a critical part of the college experience.

Background on AB 1887: Existing restrictions on travel to states that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression were imposed by AB 1887 (Chapter 687, Stats. 2016.) That measure was enacted, in large part, in response to the passage of laws in other states that authorized business or service providers, among others, to discriminate against persons on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Many of these laws were reportedly enacted in response to federal court rulings recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, most notably the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. Because California has been a leader in protecting the LGBT community against discrimination, the supporters of AB 1887 believed that the state should not require employees to travel to states that lack such protection, nor should state revenues be used to fund travel to such states. The author and supporters hoped that AB 1887 would send "a strong message that [discriminatory] laws are not acceptable to the State of California." The bill's legislative intent language echoed this view by declaring that "California must take action to avoid supporting or financing discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people." (Government Code Section 11139.8 (a)(5).)

As AB 1887 wound its way through the legislative process, only one state – North Carolina – clearly fit the criteria set forth in the bill. Since its enactment, however, the California Attorney General has added additional states to the list of states that have enacted discriminatory laws. At present the list of objectionable states has grown to eight: Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas. (The most up-to-date list can be found at https://oag.ca.gov/ab1887.) Most states were added to the list because of laws that, in the name of protecting religious freedom, allowed persons or groups to discriminate against LGBT persons. For example, Kansas and Kentucky were added to the list in 2017 because of laws that allowed campus religious groups to exclude LGBT students and faculty from membership; Tennessee is on the list because it allows therapists and counselors to reject LGBT clients. Alabama, South Dakota, and Texas were added to the list last year because they limit the ability of LGBT persons to become foster or adoptive parents.

Impact of AB 1887 on Colleges: There is no question that AB 1887 has already affected, at least to some degree, the ability of college students, faculty, and staff to receive funding for academic and athletic travel, as evidenced by articles that the author provided to the Committee. For example last year, four students at U.C. Davis could not receive funding to travel to the annual conference of the Council of Undergraduate Research, which provides a forum for presentation of student research papers. However, at least one of the students reported that, while disappointed, she passed up attending the conference, not because of lack of money, but because she supported the state's stand against anti-LGBT law. (Los Angeles Times, February 21, 2017.) AB 1887 also creates potential difficulties for faculty, who are expected to regularly present scholarly research at academic conferences as a requirement for tenure and academic promotion. While the travel bill unquestionably creates a dilemma for colleges and college faculty, it is noteworthy that neither the state's public universities, nor the California Faculty Association, have weighed in on this bill, even though they are aware of it. Indeed, while acknowledging that AB 1887 "could make it difficult for some professors to fulfill their job descriptions," a representative of the California Faculty Association noted that national academic associations are well aware of the California law and should take it into account when selecting conference sites. (Sacramento Bee, June 29, 2017.)

AB 1887 also potentially affects athletic events, depending upon the athletic conferences within which a team competes. Because schedules are put together in advance, and schools play each other pursuant to agreements with the NCAA or other regional associations, many regular season sporting events in 2017 fell under the exemption for existing contractual obligations. Going forward, however, college teams, especially those like UCLA or UC Berkeley that travel throughout the nation, could feel the pinch of the funding ban. Moreover, when it comes to championship games and tournaments, colleges do not know until the end of the season if they will qualify and, if they do, where the game will be played. For example, the San Diego State University Aztecs basketball team is scheduled to play its first round game in the NCAA "March Madness" tournament in Wichita, Kansas, a state on the Attorney General's list. Should the Aztecs advance to the Final Four they would play in San Antonio, Texas, a state that is also on the Attorney General's list. According to a report in the San Diego Union Tribune, the NCAA "covers most of a school’s expenses for the tournament, including charter flights, hotels and meals. Schools are allowed to bring additional personnel but must pay for it themselves." The "additional personnel" can be quite extensive, as it is estimated that 75 people – including players, coaches, trainers, and band members – will travel as part of the SDSU contingent to Wichita and, the Aztecs hope, beyond. While the NCAA will cover most of the expenses for the players and coaches at the tournament, the remainder will have to be funded by private foundation or auxiliary sources. It does not appear that AB 1887 will prevent any of the California teams from playing in the tournament. (San Diego Union Tribune, March 12, 2018; Inside Higher Education, June 26, 2017.)

Exerting Economic Pressure: While AB 1887 prevents California's public colleges from using taxpayer dollars to fund travel to academic and athletic events, it appears that colleges are finding other funding sources to pay for this travel. Moreover, California colleges can use state law to pressure national associations (both academic and athletic) to choose alternative sites for academic conferences and athletic tournaments. Indeed, many of these associations already do so. For example, in September of 2016, the NCAA – before AB 1887 became law – cancelled championship games in North Carolina because of a law that requires transgender persons to use the bathrooms according to the gender on their birth certificates instead of the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity. The National Basketball Association similarly relocated its annual All-Star game, which had been scheduled to happen in Charlotte. The NCAA later removed its ban when the so-called "bathroom law" was repealed. (North Carolina remains on California's list, however, due to a law that allows businesses to discriminate against LGBT persons on religious grounds.)

As with athletic associations, many national academic associations already attempt to hold conferences and conventions in states or localities that do not discriminate. For example, even though Atlanta had been a frequent site for conventions of the American Historical Association (AHA), in 2015 the AHA wrote a "letter of concern" to the Atlanta Conventions and Visitors Bureau as the Georgia legislature was considering a "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" (SB 129). The Act would have established a vendor's right to refuse goods or services to individuals based on sexual orientation, marital status, or other factors that might conflict with a vendor's religious belief or practice. The letter signed by the AHA and several affiliated associations concluded with the following warning: "Rest assured that if our members are not welcome in Georgia's business establishments, we will not return." ("Letter of Concern Regarding Georgia's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (2015)," available at https://www.historians.org/news-and-advocacy/statements-and-resolutions-of-support-and-protest.)

While the Georgia legislature passed the Act in 2016, the Governor vetoed the measure after Walt Disney Company, the National Football League, and Coca-Cola, among others, threatened to pull business out of the state. No doubt corporate and business opposition have a greater impact in thwarting such measures than do threats by academic associations or even state travel bans. AB 1887, therefore, was a small part of a larger effort by public and private actors to use the power of the purse to discourage states from enacting discriminatory laws. Indeed, compared to the corporate and academic association responses – which threatened to cancel business with those states – AB 1887 was quite tepid. AB 1887 does not, after all, terminate any business relationships beyond funding travel to the offending states. For example, under AB 1887 California can buy goods and services from businesses in those states, and nothing prevents CalPERS and CalSTRS from investing in those states. AB 1887 merely prohibits state-funding for travel to those states. Rather than further limiting the reach of an already limited measure – as the bill under consideration seeks to do – perhaps the Legislature should consider more powerful forms of economic leverage to combat LGBT discrimination.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, the state-funded travel ban imposed by AB 1887 "has a negative effect on the educational and athletic experience of college staff and students in California. Students are currently prohibited from using state funds to attend research conferences to present their research on important topics. Professors are unable to collaborate with colleagues who work in banned states. Athletic departments are prevented from scheduling games against some of the fiercest competition in the nation and coaches cannot recruit the best talent in the United States." The author contends that "the ban on state-funded travel has done little to affect the laws of other states, but California college staff and students are the ones being punished." The author maintains that, without the exemptions proposed by this bill, "California schools may lose out on revenue that comes from participating in collegiate events, at the same time the students lose out on the athletic or educational experience." Finally, the author maintains that lifting the ban on state-funded travel may actually better serve the ultimate goal of AB 1887 by opening up "other states to our ideas, culture, and ways of thinking." This, the author believes, may be a more "effective way to promote inclusivity and tolerance."

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Several LGBT rights groups oppose this because they see it as unnecessary and as a dangerous precedent that will undermine California's effort to condemn LBGT discrimination and stand in solidarity with LBGT persons. Equality California (EQCA), for example, argues that AB 2389 "would undermine AB 1887 by adding additional unnecessary exceptions for certain kinds of state-funded travel." EQCA points out that the exemptions in existing law were based on "the criteria state-level decision-makers already use to determine whether state-funded travel is necessary and serves the interests of the state." EQCA contends that the additional exemptions proposed by this bill, on the other hand, "are not necessary in part because state funds are rarely used to support state university athletics and academic competitions – funds for this travel typically come from other revenue sources." Even if such exemptions are rarely used, EQCA fears that additional exemptions will simply "chip away at the important statement AB 1887 makes by allowing California tax dollars to benefit states that engage in blatant discrimination under more and more special circumstances."

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None on file

Opposition

Equality California

Lambda Legal

National Center for Lesbian Rights

Sacramento LGBT Community Center

Stonewall Democratic Club

Analysis Prepared by: Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Date of Hearing: March 20, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2389

Author:(Harper) – As Introduced Ver:February 14, 2018

SUBJECT: Discrimination: state employees: travel

KEY ISSUE: Should state-funded travel for certain academic and athletic purposes be exempt from an existing statute that bans state-funded travel to states that discriminate against members of the LGBT Community?

SYNOPSIS

In 2016, in response to a series of laws enacted in other states that discriminated against persons based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the California Legislature enacted, and the Governor signed, AB 1887 (Chapter 687, Stats. 2016). In order to express California's strong opposition to these discriminatory laws and to show solidarity with the LGBT community, AB 1887 prohibited state agencies, including the Legislature, from requiring any person to travel to one of the offending states. It also prohibited any state agency from funding travel to such states, unless the travel was covered by one of the law's exceptions. AB 1887 provided that these restrictions did not apply to travel that is necessary for law enforcement or litigation purposes; travel that is required by pre-existing contractual, training, or grant-funding obligations; or any travel that is necessary to protect public health, welfare, or safety, as determined by the relevant state agency. This bill would expand the list of exemptions by authorizing state funding for travel to attend or participate in a collegiate academic conference of competition; to attend or participate in a collegiate athletic event; or to further recruitment of a prospective collegiate student athlete. As recent reports have demonstrated, AB 1887 applies to California's public colleges and universities, thus prohibiting state funding for faculty and student participation in academic or athletic events located in a targeted state. This bill would add three items to the already-existing list of exceptions. Specifically, this bill would allow state-funded travel for academic conferences and competitions, athletic events, and athletic recruiting. However, the exemptions in existing law apply only where travel is necessary to enforce California law, maintain federal and contractual obligations, or to otherwise protect public health, safety, or welfare. It is not clear that academic and athletic events, however important, rise to the same level of necessity. The bill is opposed by several LGBT rights organizations, who contend that the bill is unnecessary and will chip away at the important statement made by AB 1887. This bill is identical to AB 518, also by the author, which died in this Committee last year (the first year of this session) after the author requested that the bill be pulled from its scheduled hearing.

SUMMARY: Exempts travel to academic conferences and competitions, athletic events, and for purposes of athletic recruiting from an existing law that otherwise bans state-sponsored and state-funded travel to states that discriminate against the LGBTQ community, as specified.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that any state officer or employee of any state agency may confer with other persons, associations, or organizations outside of the state wherever it may be of assistance in the conduct of state business. Permits, to the extent that funds are authorized and available, reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses for travel outside of the state. Specifies that this section does not apply to legislators or their staff. (Government Code Section 11032.)
2. Provides, under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, that all persons within this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status, are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, or services of all business establishments of every kind whatsoever. Defines "sex" to include gender identity and gender expression. (Civil Code Section 51.)
3. Prohibits a state agency, including the Legislature, from requiring, sponsoring, or funding travel to any state that, as determined by the California Attorney General, has enacted a law that effectively voids or repeals a state or local protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, or that has enacted a law that authorizes or requires discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. Specifies that these restrictions shall remain in effect while any objectionable state law remains in effect. (Government Code Section 11139.8 (b).)
4. Provides that the restrictions in 3) above do not apply to travel required for the following purposes:
5. Enforcement of California law, including auditing and revenue collection.
6. Litigation.
7. To meet contractual obligations incurred before January 1, 2017.
8. To comply with requests by the federal government to appear before committees.
9. To participate in meetings or training required to obtain or maintain grant funding.
10. To complete job-required training necessary to maintain licenses, as specified.
11. To protect public health, welfare, or safety, as determined by the state entity that requires or funds the travel. (Government Code Section 1139.2 (c).)
12. Requires the California Attorney General to develop, maintain, and post on his or her Internet Web site a current list of states that, after June 26, 2015, have enacted a law described in 3) above. Specifies that it is the responsibility of each agency, department, board, authority, or commission to consult the list in order to comply with travel and funding restrictions imposed by the above provisions. (Government Code Section 11139.8 (e).)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: Under existing law, California prohibits any state agency (including boards, commissions, and the Legislature) from requiring, sponsoring, or funding travel to states that have enacted laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, or states that have enacted laws that effectively void or repeal state and local laws that expressly prohibit discrimination on such a basis. The Attorney General maintains and updates a list of states which fit these criteria, and state agencies are expected to consult the posted list when making travel decisions. Existing law exempts from these restrictions travel that is necessary for law enforcement or litigation purposes; travel that is required by pre-existing contractual, training, or grant-funding obligations; or any travel that is necessary to protect public health, welfare, or safety, as determined by the relevant state agency. This bill would expand the list of exemptions by authorizing state funding for travel to attend or participate in a collegiate academic conference of competition; to attend or participate in a collegiate athletic event; or to further recruitment of a prospective collegiate student athlete. The author believes that these reasonable exemptions will allow students and faculty to participate in events that are a critical part of the college experience.

Background on AB 1887: Existing restrictions on travel to states that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression were imposed by AB 1887 (Chapter 687, Stats. 2016.) That measure was enacted, in large part, in response to the passage of laws in other states that authorized business or service providers, among others, to discriminate against persons on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Many of these laws were reportedly enacted in response to federal court rulings recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, most notably the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. Because California has been a leader in protecting the LGBT community against discrimination, the supporters of AB 1887 believed that the state should not require employees to travel to states that lack such protection, nor should state revenues be used to fund travel to such states. The author and supporters hoped that AB 1887 would send "a strong message that [discriminatory] laws are not acceptable to the State of California." The bill's legislative intent language echoed this view by declaring that "California must take action to avoid supporting or financing discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people." (Government Code Section 11139.8 (a)(5).)

As AB 1887 wound its way through the legislative process, only one state – North Carolina – clearly fit the criteria set forth in the bill. Since its enactment, however, the California Attorney General has added additional states to the list of states that have enacted discriminatory laws. At present the list of objectionable states has grown to eight: Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas. (The most up-to-date list can be found at https://oag.ca.gov/ab1887.) Most states were added to the list because of laws that, in the name of protecting religious freedom, allowed persons or groups to discriminate against LGBT persons. For example, Kansas and Kentucky were added to the list in 2017 because of laws that allowed campus religious groups to exclude LGBT students and faculty from membership; Tennessee is on the list because it allows therapists and counselors to reject LGBT clients. Alabama, South Dakota, and Texas were added to the list last year because they limit the ability of LGBT persons to become foster or adoptive parents.

Impact of AB 1887 on Colleges: There is no question that AB 1887 has already affected, at least to some degree, the ability of college students, faculty, and staff to receive funding for academic and athletic travel, as evidenced by articles that the author provided to the Committee. For example last year, four students at U.C. Davis could not receive funding to travel to the annual conference of the Council of Undergraduate Research, which provides a forum for presentation of student research papers. However, at least one of the students reported that, while disappointed, she passed up attending the conference, not because of lack of money, but because she supported the state's stand against anti-LGBT law. (Los Angeles Times, February 21, 2017.) AB 1887 also creates potential difficulties for faculty, who are expected to regularly present scholarly research at academic conferences as a requirement for tenure and academic promotion. While the travel bill unquestionably creates a dilemma for colleges and college faculty, it is noteworthy that neither the state's public universities, nor the California Faculty Association, have weighed in on this bill, even though they are aware of it. Indeed, while acknowledging that AB 1887 "could make it difficult for some professors to fulfill their job descriptions," a representative of the California Faculty Association noted that national academic associations are well aware of the California law and should take it into account when selecting conference sites. (Sacramento Bee, June 29, 2017.)

AB 1887 also potentially affects athletic events, depending upon the athletic conferences within which a team competes. Because schedules are put together in advance, and schools play each other pursuant to agreements with the NCAA or other regional associations, many regular season sporting events in 2017 fell under the exemption for existing contractual obligations. Going forward, however, college teams, especially those like UCLA or UC Berkeley that travel throughout the nation, could feel the pinch of the funding ban. Moreover, when it comes to championship games and tournaments, colleges do not know until the end of the season if they will qualify and, if they do, where the game will be played. For example, the San Diego State University Aztecs basketball team is scheduled to play its first round game in the NCAA "March Madness" tournament in Wichita, Kansas, a state on the Attorney General's list. Should the Aztecs advance to the Final Four they would play in San Antonio, Texas, a state that is also on the Attorney General's list. According to a report in the San Diego Union Tribune, the NCAA "covers most of a school’s expenses for the tournament, including charter flights, hotels and meals. Schools are allowed to bring additional personnel but must pay for it themselves." The "additional personnel" can be quite extensive, as it is estimated that 75 people – including players, coaches, trainers, and band members – will travel as part of the SDSU contingent to Wichita and, the Aztecs hope, beyond. While the NCAA will cover most of the expenses for the players and coaches at the tournament, the remainder will have to be funded by private foundation or auxiliary sources. It does not appear that AB 1887 will prevent any of the California teams from playing in the tournament. (San Diego Union Tribune, March 12, 2018; Inside Higher Education, June 26, 2017.)

Exerting Economic Pressure: While AB 1887 prevents California's public colleges from using taxpayer dollars to fund travel to academic and athletic events, it appears that colleges are finding other funding sources to pay for this travel. Moreover, California colleges can use state law to pressure national associations (both academic and athletic) to choose alternative sites for academic conferences and athletic tournaments. Indeed, many of these associations already do so. For example, in September of 2016, the NCAA – before AB 1887 became law – cancelled championship games in North Carolina because of a law that requires transgender persons to use the bathrooms according to the gender on their birth certificates instead of the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity. The National Basketball Association similarly relocated its annual All-Star game, which had been scheduled to happen in Charlotte. The NCAA later removed its ban when the so-called "bathroom law" was repealed. (North Carolina remains on California's list, however, due to a law that allows businesses to discriminate against LGBT persons on religious grounds.)

As with athletic associations, many national academic associations already attempt to hold conferences and conventions in states or localities that do not discriminate. For example, even though Atlanta had been a frequent site for conventions of the American Historical Association (AHA), in 2015 the AHA wrote a "letter of concern" to the Atlanta Conventions and Visitors Bureau as the Georgia legislature was considering a "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" (SB 129). The Act would have established a vendor's right to refuse goods or services to individuals based on sexual orientation, marital status, or other factors that might conflict with a vendor's religious belief or practice. The letter signed by the AHA and several affiliated associations concluded with the following warning: "Rest assured that if our members are not welcome in Georgia's business establishments, we will not return." ("Letter of Concern Regarding Georgia's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (2015)," available at https://www.historians.org/news-and-advocacy/statements-and-resolutions-of-support-and-protest.)

While the Georgia legislature passed the Act in 2016, the Governor vetoed the measure after Walt Disney Company, the National Football League, and Coca-Cola, among others, threatened to pull business out of the state. No doubt corporate and business opposition have a greater impact in thwarting such measures than do threats by academic associations or even state travel bans. AB 1887, therefore, was a small part of a larger effort by public and private actors to use the power of the purse to discourage states from enacting discriminatory laws. Indeed, compared to the corporate and academic association responses – which threatened to cancel business with those states – AB 1887 was quite tepid. AB 1887 does not, after all, terminate any business relationships beyond funding travel to the offending states. For example, under AB 1887 California can buy goods and services from businesses in those states, and nothing prevents CalPERS and CalSTRS from investing in those states. AB 1887 merely prohibits state-funding for travel to those states. Rather than further limiting the reach of an already limited measure – as the bill under consideration seeks to do – perhaps the Legislature should consider more powerful forms of economic leverage to combat LGBT discrimination.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, the state-funded travel ban imposed by AB 1887 "has a negative effect on the educational and athletic experience of college staff and students in California. Students are currently prohibited from using state funds to attend research conferences to present their research on important topics. Professors are unable to collaborate with colleagues who work in banned states. Athletic departments are prevented from scheduling games against some of the fiercest competition in the nation and coaches cannot recruit the best talent in the United States." The author contends that "the ban on state-funded travel has done little to affect the laws of other states, but California college staff and students are the ones being punished." The author maintains that, without the exemptions proposed by this bill, "California schools may lose out on revenue that comes from participating in collegiate events, at the same time the students lose out on the athletic or educational experience." Finally, the author maintains that lifting the ban on state-funded travel may actually better serve the ultimate goal of AB 1887 by opening up "other states to our ideas, culture, and ways of thinking." This, the author believes, may be a more "effective way to promote inclusivity and tolerance."

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Several LGBT rights groups oppose this because they see it as unnecessary and as a dangerous precedent that will undermine California's effort to condemn LBGT discrimination and stand in solidarity with LBGT persons. Equality California (EQCA), for example, argues that AB 2389 "would undermine AB 1887 by adding additional unnecessary exceptions for certain kinds of state-funded travel." EQCA points out that the exemptions in existing law were based on "the criteria state-level decision-makers already use to determine whether state-funded travel is necessary and serves the interests of the state." EQCA contends that the additional exemptions proposed by this bill, on the other hand, "are not necessary in part because state funds are rarely used to support state university athletics and academic competitions – funds for this travel typically come from other revenue sources." Even if such exemptions are rarely used, EQCA fears that additional exemptions will simply "chip away at the important statement AB 1887 makes by allowing California tax dollars to benefit states that engage in blatant discrimination under more and more special circumstances."

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None on file

Opposition

Equality California

Lambda Legal

National Center for Lesbian Rights

Sacramento LGBT Community Center

Stonewall Democratic Club

Analysis Prepared by: Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334