SB 1114 Codifies Unequal Treatment by Government

The Newsline Editorial Board opposes any law that classifies Californians by race, skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity and then grants special legal treatment on that basis. SB 1114, signed by the Governor on Sept. 26 and now Chapter 471 of the Statutes of 2026, does exactly that. It amends the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Disparities Reduction Act to define and specially protect "information pertaining to SOGISC" — sexual orientation identity, gender identity, identification as intersex, or identification as possessing sex characteristics that vary from those typically associated with a person's sex assigned at birth.

Existing law already requires the State Department of Public Health and other specified state entities, when collecting demographic data on ancestry or ethnic origin, to also collect voluntary self-identification information on these SOGISC categories. SB 1114 goes further. It prohibits disclosure of SOGISC information in a manner that allows personal identification to any entity outside California state or local government or an authorized agency. It limits identifiable SOGISC data to the minimal extent required for narrow exceptions and demands compliance with the Information Practices Act of 1977.

The bill also applies these restrictions to information that could reasonably be used to infer a person's transgender or intersex status. It makes such data confidential and exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act unless deidentified or released under the narrow exceptions. State entities must notify the Legislature when they have the automation capabilities to share SOGISC data in shared systems with federal programs, with the State Department of Social Services required to comply no later than Jan. 1, 2028. Violations carry penalties under the Information Practices Act, and the measure even expands the scope of a misdemeanor for willfully obtaining such records under false pretenses.

The Legislature included findings to justify limiting public access to these records, as required by the California Constitution for any statute that restricts the right of access to public writings. The bill passed with little opposition: 30-0 and then 33-0 in the Senate, 60-14 in the Assembly. It was chaptered without a veto message from the Governor.

Our objection is one of principle. The law must treat every Californian the same. Government should not create a special protected class of data based on sexual orientation, gender identity or sex characteristics. When the state collects demographic data tied to ancestry or ethnic origin, it already walks a fine line; layering on SOGISC self-identification and then wrapping that information in unique confidentiality rules singles out some Californians for differential treatment.

This is not equal protection. It is the opposite. By statute, information about some personal characteristics now receives heightened safeguards against disclosure that other demographic data do not. The law carves out a privileged legal status for SOGISC data, shielding it from the normal operation of the Public Records Act and from sharing outside government in ways not uniformly applied to all citizens. We believe every individual possesses the same right to equal treatment by the state, including those the bill seeks to single out for special rules.

Proponents may claim this protects privacy. That claim misses the point. The proper way to protect everyone's privacy is to apply uniform, colorblind rules to all personal information the government collects, not to select certain identity categories for elevated status. Once government begins deciding which identities deserve extra legal armor, it abandons the neutral principle that all Californians stand equal before the law.

The bill's expansion of the Information Practices Act to cover these new definitions also creates a state-mandated local program, though the measure declares no reimbursement is required. Taxpayers ultimately bear the cost of yet another layer of government data bureaucracy built around identity categories rather than individual rights or merit.

We fear the likely result of this policy is further entrenchment of identity-based administration in state agencies. When public postsecondary institutions, health departments, and social services must maintain separate protocols, automation capabilities, and disclosure rules keyed to SOGISC data, government begins to see citizens through the lens of these classifications rather than as individuals equal under law. That is the opposite of the colorblind equality we champion.

The Legislature and Governor chose to codify special treatment instead of insisting on uniform rules. They chose to expand protected categories rather than reaffirm that the law applies equally to every Californian regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. This editorial board continues to insist that individual rights, not group identities, must remain the foundation of California law.

SB 1114 is not an isolated technical tweak. It is a deliberate policy choice to treat some demographic self-identifications as specially sensitive and specially shielded. That choice violates the core conservative principle that government must not dispense special rights or special protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity. All citizens deserve the same legal framework, the same transparency rules, and the same expectation that their data will be handled under neutral standards.

California needs lawmakers who will repeal identity-based classifications rather than expand them. Until then, measures like SB 1114 will continue to embed unequal treatment in the statutes. The law should know no favorites. It should treat every Californian the same.