State won’t appeal ruling on sex offender tracking

FILE - In this March 8, 2014, file photo, California Attorney General Kamala Harris speaks during a general session at the California Democrats State Convention in Los Angeles. Barbara Boxer announced Thursday, Jan. 8, 2015, that she will not seek re-election in 2016. Among likely Democratic candidates are Harris and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, both of whom cruised to re-election last fall. Each offered statements Thursday praising Boxer's tenure, which will end in two years, but did not say if they will run in 2016. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File) less FILE - In this March 8, 2014, file photo, California Attorney General Kamala Harris speaks during a general session at the California Democrats State Convention in Los Angeles. Barbara Boxer announced Thursday, ... more Photo: Jae C. Hong, Associated Press Photo: Jae C. Hong, Associated Press Image 1 of / 1 Caption Close State won’t appeal ruling on sex offender tracking 1 / 1 Back to Gallery

Attorney General Kamala Harris says she will not ask the Supreme Court to let California enforce a voter-approved law that would require more than 70,000 sex offenders to disclose their Internet identities to police — a decision that apparently means the law will not take effect.

The law was part of Proposition 35, a ballot measure passed by an 81 percent voting majority in November 2012. The challenged provision would require registered sex offenders, who already must disclose their address to police, to also reveal their e-mail addresses, user names and Internet providers.

The case does not affect most sections of the proposition, which increased prison sentences for sex-trafficking crimes, such as coercing someone into prostitution.

U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson blocked enforcement of the Internet disclosure provision before it could take effect, and the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his ruling in November, saying the law was likely to violate the free-speech rights of ex-convicts who were no longer on probation or parole.

Although the disclosure requirement was part of a “legitimate” attempt to combat sexual exploitation and human trafficking, it would discourage registered sex offenders from taking part in online forums about social issues, hamper their constitutional right to speak anonymously and enable police to make their identifying information public, the court said.

The requirement “significantly burdens those individuals’ ability and willingness to speak on the Internet,” Judge Jay Bybee, one of the court’s most conservative members, said in the 3-0 ruling.

He also said Prop. 35 failed to spell out which Internet accounts sex offenders must disclose — new or previously existing accounts; their own; or those used by friends, relatives or the local library.

Harris’ office defended the law in court, but said Tuesday that it would not appeal to the Supreme Court.

Instead, a top aide said, the attorney general will ask the Legislature to rewrite the disclosure requirement to meet the court’s objections.

Those changes could include specifying the accounts to be disclosed to police and barring officers from making the information public.

“The court of appeals has laid out a road map for the Legislature to fix this requirement and we look forward to working with interested parties to fulfill the purposes of the initiative in a manner consistent with the United States Constitution,” Ed DuMont, the solicitor general in Harris’ office, said in a statement.

Sponsors of Prop. 35 were allowed to join in the state’s defense of the disclosure requirements in the lower federal courts, but — based on the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling on Prop. 8, the now-repealed ban on same-sex marriage — cannot appeal to the nation’s high court on their own.

The measure’s chief sponsor, Chris Kelly, a former chief privacy officer for Facebook, criticized Harris’ decision.

“You cannot promote Internet safety by protecting the anonymity of sex offenders,” Kelly said in a statement. “This is clearly a case of misplaced priorities and indicates a blatant disrespect for California voters.”

Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: begelko@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @egelko