SACRAMENTO — President Trump’s proposed “travel ban” from several Muslim-majority countries has consistently been blocked by the courts. But California has a ban of its own — barring official travel to a growing list of pariah states.

The new law took effect in January, outlawing state employees and officials from using tax money to go to states with laws California deems discriminatory in regards to LGBT issues.

The first states on the list were Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee. But late last week, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced that the list has doubled and now includes Alabama, Kentucky, South Dakota and Texas, the second-largest state in the U.S.

Related Articles Why the red states are wrong about California’s travel ban

California’s travel ban: How does it affect college sports? “Our country has made great strides in dismantling prejudicial laws that have deprived too many of our fellow Americans of their precious rights,” Becerra said in a statement. “Sadly, that is not the case in all parts of our nation, even in the 21st century.”

Three of the four new states recently moved to protect faith-based adoption or foster agencies who refuse to place children with certain families, such as same-sex couples. Another protects religious expression in schools, including provisions on student organizations that LGBT advocates argue could allow clubs to shun prospective members based on their gender identity.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott responded to Becerra’s announcement with a biting rebuke in a statement that highlighted his state’s economic rivalry with the Golden State.

“California may be able to stop their state employees, but they can’t stop all the businesses that are fleeing over taxation and regulation and relocating to Texas,” Abbott spokesman John Wittman told a Dallas TV station.

While the motivations behind California’s move are understandable, the ban could be tricky to implement — and potentially trigger political retribution, said Jack Pitney, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College.

“California is not held in high esteem in much of the country,” Pitney said. “One could see legislatures in other states supporting some kind of retaliatory action. It would be quite popular with the Republican electorate.”

But a ban on travel to California might not go over that well in other states, he said.

“There are quite possibly a lot of people who want an excuse to visit Disneyland,” Pitney quipped.

Assemblyman Evan Low, D-Cupertino, leads the California Legislative LGBT Caucus and wrote Assembly Bill 1887, which created the ban. He applauded Becerra’s decision to double the number of states on the list.

“AB 1887 was enacted to ensure our taxpayer dollars do not fund bigotry or hatred,” he said. “Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s action today sends a strong message that discrimination beyond our borders will not be tolerated.”

Whether Cal State and University of California athletic teams will keep traveling to states on the list remains an open question.

The attorney general’s office says the teams won’t have to cancel already-scheduled games. So that means the Cal Bears this fall will get to play the University of North Carolina and the San Jose State Spartans will head to the University of Texas at Austin.

But the attorney general’s office said Friday it has yet to issue an opinion on whether the ban will eventually apply to athletic staff members from UC and CSU — a decision that could affect future match-ups.

Becerra has promised to soon release “general guidance” to state agencies and departments on how to interpret the new law.

The ban includes some exceptions, such as travel for law enforcement, existing contractual agreements and mandatory job training — but only for “required” travel.

UC spokesman Ricardo Vasquez said researchers this year have used non-state funds to travel to conferences in states on the list.

States added to California’s travel ban, and the new laws that put them on the list

ALABAMA: HB 24 allows state-funded, faith-based adoption and foster agencies to refuse to place children with same-sex couples.

KENTUCKY: SB 17, a bill to protect religious expression in schools, would make it harder for school officials to regulate how student organizations select their members, which LGBT advocates argue will foster discrimination.

SOUTH DAKOTA: Like Alabama’s new law, SB 149 gives legal protection to adoption and foster agencies who refuse to place children in homes with same-sex couples.

TEXAS: HB 3859 also allows faith-based foster and adoption agencies, including those that are state-funded, to refuse to place children with same-sex couples.



Like our Facebook page for more conversation and news coverage from the Bay Area and beyond.

