Campaign for Gay Rights Initiative Dies : Election: Measure would have banned job and housing bias. Some activists urged pursuing goals in Legislature instead of on ballot.

Amid fears that an electoral strategy could backfire and cripple the gay rights movement, a coalition of activists has abandoned an initiative drive launched last October during angry protests of Gov. Pete Wilson’s veto of major gay rights legislation.

Backers of the initiative, which would have asked California voters to decide whether homosexuals should be protected against workplace and housing bias, had collected about 75,000 signatures and had very little chance of getting the 482,000 needed by April 10 to place the initiative on the November ballot.

Carol Anderson, a co-chairwoman of the Action Coalition for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Equality, said on Monday the initiative “received very good response from the non-gay community.” But among gay leaders, the bold rhetoric and enthusiasm that accompanied the initiative drive in October gave way to misgivings.

“One thing they say repeatedly is that the rights of minorities should not be put to a vote of the majority,” said Anderson, a Los Angeles attorney, referring to gay leaders who opposed the initiative strategy.

Many activists, she said, feared that “if we lose the initiative, it would do significant damage to the civil rights of the gay and lesbian community.”

Torie Osborn, executive director of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Community Services Center, said it was an unfortunate but politically sensible move.

“I think the handwriting was on the wall from the start,” she said. “Initiative campaigns are highly expensive and highly risky.”

In shelving the initiative, the coalition acceded to gays who argued that legislation represents a smarter political strategy. Later this month, Assemblyman Terry Friedman (D-Sherman Oaks) is expected to introduce new gay rights legislation as a substitute to last year’s AB 101, the bill that Wilson vetoed.

The political maneuvers come at a time of considerable confusion about whether state laws and policies protect gays and lesbians from discrimination.

In his veto message, Wilson asserted that existing codes and legal opinions were sufficient to protect gays from job discrimination. Only days later, the state Court of Appeal in effect agreed with Wilson when it ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a case challenging a psychological test given to job applicants at Target stores.

The state Labor Commission, evidently influenced by Wilson and the appellate ruling, has subsequently accepted gay bias complaints for review. About 30 such complaints have been filed, and two inspectors have been assigned to investigate them, according to lawyers who specialize in the field.

But last Friday, the California Supreme Court set aside the appellate ruling.

Brad Seligman, attorney for the plaintiffs in the Target case, and other lawyers say they expect the Labor Commission to continue to accept and review complaints of anti-gay bias while the high court ponders the case.

It is unclear when the Supreme Court will make its ruling. Rand Martin, a senior consultant to Friedman, said it is “highly unlikely” that the high court will make a ruling before the assemblyman’s new bill wends its way through the Legislature.

Anderson and other gay activists were encouraged by the Labor Commission’s new posture concerning anti-gay bias, but disappointed when the Supreme Court decided to review the Court of Appeals ruling. If the high court had allowed the appellate ruling to stand, it would have become precedential case law governing lower courts throughout he state.

Although it is dropping its initiative, Anderson said the coalition intends to continue to advocate gay rights. If new legislation fails and the Supreme Court rules that the law does not protect gays, Anderson said, the group will launch another initiative campaign in 1994.