VICTOR JOECKS: The left’s unequal application of equal rights

Nevada voters approved a new constitutional amendment in 2022. No one is quite sure what it means.

Last Thursday, the Nevada System of Higher Education Board of Regents had an informational item on potentially protecting women’s sports. Regents Susan Brager, Byron Brooks and Stephanie Goodman requested it.

“This is a common-sense issue,” Brager said. “I think that we do need to absolutely protect women’s sports.”

Brager, who served three terms on the Clark County School Board, might be the most prominent Democrat in Nevada to advocate for this reform. Most Democrats sound like Regent Carlos Fernandez. He stated that men who claim to be women “are women playing women’s sports.”

But Lynda King, the system’s associate general counsel, pre-empted efforts to protect female athletes. She claimed, “There are legal barriers to that conversation right now.” She cited the Nevada Constitution, which “all regents take an oath to uphold.” As such, “we’re limited in our ability to advise you on that,” she said.

Last fall, University of Nevada, Reno President Brian Sandoval made a similar assertion. The university declined to forfeit when its volleyball team courageously refused to play against a male opponent.

“As a public university, we are legally prohibited by Section 24 of the Nevada Constitution and other laws and regulations to declare a forfeit for reasons related to gender identity or expression,” he said in a letter to the school.

He was referring to the state’s Equal Rights Amendment, which voters approved in 2022. It states that “equality of rights” shall not be denied by the state or its political subdivisions based on a host of factors, including sex and gender identity.

This may sound straightforward, but it’s not. A woman’s right to fair competition is in direct conflict with policies that allow a man who claims to be a woman to play in female sports. You have to pick one or the other. The Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association used this line of reasoning when it recently protected girls’ sports.

To sort through this contradictory mess, it’s helpful to look at two things. The first is what backers of the amendment told voters. Opponents, myself included, warned that it could take away opportunities from female athletes. In the official arguments for passage, proponents specifically promised it wouldn’t undermine women’s sports.

“This ballot measure will not remove the state’s ability to ensure competitive balance in school sports” and “will not prevent the traditional separation of men’s and women’s restrooms,” proponents wrote.

Second, look at the actions of legislative Democrats. In 2019 and 2021, Assemblywoman Sandra Jauregui voted for the ERA when it was before the Legislature. It also includes a prohibition on abridging the equality of rights based on age. Yet, this session, she has sponsored a bill to prohibit those under 21 from possessing a semiautomatic shotgun or semiautomatic centerfire rifle. The current age limit is 18.

If Jauregui took the ERA literally, she would be rolling back age-based restrictions. Instead, she’s doing the opposite. Assembly Democrats, including several who voted for the ERA, have already voted for her bill.

The unequal application of “equal rights” is anything but equal justice under the law.

Contact Victor Joecks at vjoecks@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-4698. Follow @victorjoecks on X.