Connect with us

Politics

LA County native Leondra Kruger may be nominee for U.S. Supreme Court

If nominated and confirmed, Kruger would be not only the first Black woman on the court, but also the youngest justice

Published

on

Leondra R. Kruger, (R) keynote speaker at Tom Homann LGBT Law Association meeting 2019 (Photo credit: THLA)

By Amy Howe | WASHINGTON – During a 2020 Democratic presidential primary debate, then-candidate Joe Biden pledged that, if elected, he would nominate a Black woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. With Justice Stephen Breyer expected to retire at the end of this term, California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger is one of the frontrunners to succeed him.

If nominated and confirmed, Kruger – who is just 45 years old – would be not only the first Black woman on the court, but also the youngest justice by over four years and the youngest justice confirmed since Clarence Thomas joined the court in 1991 at age 43. Despite her relative youth, Kruger would bring substantial experience at the high court, with 12 Supreme Court arguments under her belt, as well as a seven-year record on the California Supreme Court that resembles the record of the justice she would replace.

Early life and career

A native of southern California, Kruger is the daughter of two physicians. Her mother hails from Jamaica, while her late father was the son of Jewish immigrants from eastern Europe. Kruger attended the prestigious Polytechnic School, a private prep school in Pasadena, California, whose other alumni include Julia Child and James Ho, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit who was on former President Donald Trump’s short list to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

After graduating from Polytechnic, Kruger compiled the kind of sterling resume the public has come to expect from Supreme Court nominees. She graduated with honors from Harvard University, where she was a reporter for the Harvard Crimson. Kruger covered a wide range of stories, including a hearing on Cambridge’s affirmative-action policy, the 1994 Senate race between the late Sen. Edward Kennedy and Mitt Romney, and a travel guide to her hometown of Pasadena that humorously dismissed East Coast stereotypes about catastrophes in California (“Earthquakes! Fires! Mudslides! Riots!”) as “only jealousy.”

After Harvard, Kruger went to Yale Law School, where she was the editor in chief of the Yale Law Journal – the first Black woman to hold that job. During law school, Kruger spent one summer as an intern for the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles and a second summer as a summer associate at Munger, Tolles & Olson. After graduating from Yale in 2001, she spent a year working as an associate at Jenner & Block in Washington, D.C., before going to clerk for Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 2002 to 2003. Kruger went from the D.C. Circuit to the Supreme Court, where she clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens during the 2003-04 term.

When Kruger finished her clerkships, she went into private practice at a third firm, now known as WilmerHale. During her two years there, her clients included Shell Oil, which Kruger represented in an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit involving a half-billion-dollar judgment in a Nicaraguan court against Shell and others, as well as Verizon Communications, which Kruger represented in federal district court in California in litigation challenging the participation by telecommunications companies in the government’s domestic-terrorist surveillance program. Kruger left WilmerHale for the University of Chicago Law School, where she taught a class in transnational litigation as a visiting assistant professor.

A stint in the Obama administration, including arguments at the Supreme Court

Kruger returned to Washington in 2007 to take a job as an assistant to the U.S. solicitor general. She served in that role for several years, until she was named the acting principal deputy solicitor general. The lawyer who holds that job, which is sometimes known as the “political deputy,” is normally the only deputy in the solicitor general’s office who is not a career civil servant (and the only other political appointee, beyond the solicitor general, in the office).

During her six years in the solicitor general’s office, Kruger argued 12 cases at the Supreme Court on behalf of the federal government. One of those cases was a high-profile dispute involving whether the “ministerial exception” to employment-discrimination laws – the idea that religious institutions normally have the sole right to determine who can act as their ministers – barred a lawsuit by a teacher and ordained minister who had been fired by the Lutheran school where she worked. Kruger argued that the teacher should be able to pursue her lawsuit against the school for alleged discrimination on the basis of disability. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, unanimously rejected that position and held that the ministerial exception applied.

The other cases Kruger argued touched on a wide range of issues, from the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause and right to counsel to federal “career criminal” laws and federal benefits laws. At the lectern, Kruger’s tone with the justices was conversational from the start, with a quiet confidence. She was poised even when she was being peppered with questions from all sides of the bench, as she was in defending an ultimately unsuccessful position in her first argument, in Begay v. United States.

Kruger left the solicitor general’s office in 2013 to serve as a deputy assistant attorney general in another section of the Department of Justice: the Office of Legal Counsel, which (among other things) provides legal advice to the president and other agencies within the executive branch. As Rory Little observed, that office has “yielded an unusual share of prominent federal judges and Justices over the past half century,” including the late Justice Antonin Scalia and the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

During her time in the Department of Justice, Kruger twice received the attorney general’s award for exceptional service, the department’s “highest award for employee performance.” Both awards give a glimpse into her work at DOJ beyond the courtroom. In 2013, she was part of a team that won the award for its work in defending the Affordable Care Act, while in 2014 she was a member of a group that won the award for its work implementing the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor, striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

An “out of the box” pick for the California Supreme Court

In 2014, California Governor Jerry Brown nominated Kruger, then just 38 years old, to serve on the California Supreme Court when Associate Justice Joyce Kennard retired. Kruger’s former bosses in the solicitor general’s office praised her selection, with then-Solicitor General Don Verrilli describing her as “brilliant, deeply principled and eloquent” and former Solicitor General Paul Clement calling her an “outstanding lawyer” who “combines an understated and easygoing manner with a keen legal mind and unquestioned integrity.” Former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal echoed those thoughts, saying that “California, and the nation, could do no better than Leondra Kruger.”

But despite those accolades from Washington, Kruger’s nomination was not greeted with unbridled enthusiasm within California because Kruger was not a practicing lawyer in the state, was not a judge, and lacked trial experience. However, Kruger was rated “exceptionally well qualified” by the California state bar group responsible for evaluating judicial nominees, and in December 2014 she was confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments, a three-member body that holds a hearing to consider and decide whether to confirm nominees to the state’s highest courts. The commission’s members included Kamala Harris, then the state’s attorney general and now the vice president of the United States. Kruger was sworn into office in January 2015, becoming only the second Black woman to serve on the California Supreme Court.

Lawyers who practice regularly before that court describe Kruger in terms that are not unlike those used to characterize Breyer. In a November 2020 story for The Recorder, appellate lawyer Ben Feuer indicated that Kruger was “not looking to create radical change in the law emanating from the judicial branch.” “Rather,” Feuer continued, she understands the limited yet critical role the judicial branch plays in the complex ballet of our representative democracy.”

In a 2018 interview with the Los Angeles Times, Kruger herself said that she tries to do her job “in a way that enhances the predictability and stability of the law and public confidence and trust in the work of the courts.” Many of the published decisions that Kruger has written or joined while on the California Supreme Court have been unanimous rulings, with largely (although not uniformly) liberal-leaning results.

Upholding rights of the accused, from juvenile court to death-penalty cases

Kruger wrote for a unanimous court in April 2018 in a decision holding that videotaped statements by a three-year-old who claimed that she had been sexually molested by her father should not have been used as the basis to find that the child had been abused, which in turn led to an order for the father’s removal from the family’s home. Kruger acknowledged that juvenile courts have a “sensitive and difficult task” in such cases. However, she continued, the evidence in this case of the child’s reliability was “weaker than the juvenile court acknowledged.” The juvenile court failed to take into account that the child had also recently been molested by an older child, and that “[h]er repeated statements about abuse were strikingly similar to descriptions of that” incident. Moreover, Kruger added, “the child’s account contained both inconsistencies and inaccuracies that were woven through her core allegations.”

California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger
Photo: State of California

With automatic appeals to the California Supreme Court, death penalty cases are a staple of the court’s docket. However, California has not executed anyone since 2006, and in 2019 the state’s governor, Gavin Newsom, imposed an official moratorium on executions. In 2019, Kruger wrote for a unanimous court in overturning the death sentence of Jeffrey Scott Young, who was convicted of killing two people during a 2002 robbery and carjacking at an offsite parking lot near San Diego International Airport. The court agreed with Young that the jury should not have been allowed to consider evidence regarding his white supremacist beliefs and tattoos, which prosecutors had introduced during the sentencing phase of his trial to rebut evidence about his good character.

The specific evidence to which prosecutors had been responding, Kruger explained, was testimony from Young’s grandmother about, for example, “his commitment to his family and children.” Although the court did not rule out the possibility that, in a different case, evidence of a defendant’s racist beliefs could be admitted, it cannot be used, Kruger concluded, simply to demonstrate the offensiveness of those beliefs.

Kruger wrote again for a unanimous court in 2020 to throw out another death sentence, this time in the high-profile case of Scott Peterson, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the 2002 murders of his pregnant wife, Laci, and the couple’s unborn child, Conner. Kruger agreed with Peterson that the trial court had made “a series of clear and significant errors in jury selection that, under long-standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, undermined Peterson’s right to an impartial jury at the penalty phase.” Most notably, Kruger explained, the trial court should not have dismissed potential jurors simply because they expressed general opposition to the death penalty, without also determining whether that opposition would have meant that they would be unable to follow the law and impose the death penalty if warranted. In December 2021, Peterson was resentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Bodycam footage and sexual-abuse lawsuits

Two years ago, Kruger wrote for the court in its decision holding that a California city could not charge a public-interest group seeking public records for the approximately 40 hours that city employees spent editing footage from police body cameras. A local chapter of the National Lawyers Guild sought records relating to the Hayward Police Department’s actions in the 2014 demonstrations that followed grand jury decisions not to indict the police officers involved in the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown. The city of Hayward billed the group $3,000, citing a state-law provision that requires the person or group requesting electronic records to pay the costs associated with producing copies of those records when producing those copies would require the extraction of data.

The extraction of data, Kruger explained, does not cover redacting exempt material from electronic records that the city would otherwise need to disclose. That interpretation, Kruger reasoned, is more consistent with both the text of the statute and the California legislature’s intent in enacting the law. Moreover, she added, interpreting the term “extraction” to include the costs of redaction “would make it more difficult for the public to access information kept in electronic format” – contrary to the state’s constitution, which “favors an interpretation that avoids erecting such substantial financial barriers to access.”

Kruger acknowledged the city’s argument that “requests for body camera footage present unique concerns for government agencies with limited resources” because of the privacy interests involved, among other things. But this provision does not only cover body-camera footage, Kruger stressed. Instead, she noted, “it covers every type of electronic record, from garden-variety emails to large government databases.” Only the legislature, Kruger indicated, can decide whether to create special rules for body-camera footage.

Last year, Kruger wrote for the court in a unanimous decision holding that three athletes who allege that they were sexually abused by a coach as teenagers can sue USA Taekwondo but not the U.S. Olympic Committee. In her opinion, Kruger rebuffed the plaintiffs’ suggestion that the court should adopt a “more flexible and holistic approach” to determine whether a defendant can be held responsible for failing to protect a victim from harm caused by another person. “Without denying the gravity of the injuries these plaintiffs suffered,” Kruger stressed, “nor the broader problem of sexual abuse of minors in organized youth sports and other activities,” a defendant cannot be held responsible for injuries that it did not cause “unless there are special circumstances” that create a special duty for the defendant to provide protection or help to the plaintiffs.

Other notable decisions Kruger joined

In 2018, Kruger joined a unanimous decision that upheld a state law requiring new handgun models to imprint “micro stamps” inside the guns and on shell casings to make it easier for police to identify them. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for gun manufacturers, argued that the requirement should be invalidated because it was impossible to implement the technology. The decision by Justice Goodwin Liu emphasized that the ruling did not involve the constitutionality of the requirement, but instead was simply a question of statutory interpretation. The California Supreme Court’s cases, Liu explained, have acknowledged that statutes may contain an exception when it is impossible to comply with the law when that is what the legislature intended. But in this case, Liu wrote, neither the text nor the purpose of the law indicates that, once the law went into effect, gun manufacturers may be excused from the requirement because it is impossible to comply with it.

Kruger concurred in a 2019 opinion by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye that unanimously upheld the death sentence of a man convicted of a brutal double murder and robbery. Cantil-Sakauye’s opinion also rejected the challenge by the inmate, Thomas Potts, to the constitutionality of the state’s death-penalty scheme, as well as his contention that his more than two decades on death row constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

Kruger did not join a concurring opinion by Liu that, while expressing “tremendous compassion for the victims and their families,” characterized the state’s death-penalty system as “an expensive and dysfunctional system that does not deliver justice or closure in a timely manner, if at all.” It is time, Liu suggested, for a discussion of the death penalty’s “effectiveness and costs.” 

Kruger joined a unanimous opinion by Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, another Brown appointee, abolishing the state’s cash bail system. The question came to the court in the case of Kenneth Humphrey, a 66-year-old man charged with robbery. Humphrey’s bail was initially set at $600,000 and then was reduced to $350,000 – an amount that Humphrey still could not pay. Cuellar concluded that the “common practice of conditioning freedom solely on whether an arrestee can afford bail is unconstitutional.” “Other conditions of release,” he continued, including “electronic monitoring, regular check-ins with a pretrial case manager, community housing or shelter, and drug and alcohol treatment,” can often “protect public and victim safety as well as assure the arrestee’s appearance at trial.”

A varied record in divided cases

But not all of the California Supreme Court’s opinions are unanimous. And when the court has divided, Kruger has been difficult to pigeonhole. She has sometimes joined Democratic appointees to reach an arguably “liberal” result, but at other times she has joined Republican appointees to arrive at an arguably “conservative” result.

In the 2016 case Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Kruger declined to join Cuellar’s majority opinion holding that an employer violated state labor laws by requiring its employees – security guards – to keep their radios and pagers on during their rest periods in case they were needed. Cuellar, whose ruling was joined by four other justices, reasoned that the employer’s policies “conflict with an employer’s obligation to provide breaks relieving employees of all work-related duties and employer control.”

In an opinion joined by Justice Carol Corrigan, who was named to the court by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, Kruger agreed with the majority that employers “must provide off-duty rest periods” for their employees. But, she continued, simply requiring those employees to carry a radio or a pager during their rest periods isn’t, standing alone, work – particularly when there is no evidence that the security guards’ rest periods were actually interrupted. Kruger would have sent the case back to the lower courts for them to determine whether the company’s “on-call policy actually interfered with its employees’ ability to use their rest periods as periods of rest.”

Kruger provided the key vote in 2018 in Hassell v. Bird, in which the court declined to uphold an order that would have required Yelp to remove negative reviews of a law firm from its site. A three-justice plurality, in an opinion by Cantil-Sakauye, another Schwarzenegger appointee, agreed with Yelp that requiring it to take down the reviews would violate Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996, which generally gives websites immunity for content created by their users. (Corrigan and Justice Ming Chin, who was appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican, provided the other two votes for Cantil-Sakauye’s opinion.)

In a separate concurring opinion, Kruger explained that in her view it was “unnecessary to reach” the Section 230 issue. Instead, she would resolve the case on the “more basic” ground that Yelp – which had not been named as a defendant in the case – could not be required to take the review down without “its own day in court.” Kruger agreed that the majority had reached the correct result, but she emphasized that she would not weigh in on how Section 230 might apply more broadly in future cases. She reasoned that although Section 230 “has brought an end to a number of lawsuits seeking remedies for a wide range of civil wrongs accomplished through Internet postings,” “the broad sweep of section 230 remedies also has ‘troubling consequences.’” “Whether to maintain the status quo,” Kruger concluded, “is a question only Congress can decide.”

Joined by Cuellar and two other Brown appointees — Liu and Justice Joshua Groban — Kruger wrote for a 4-3 court in 2019 in throwing out a lower-court ruling that upheld a search of a car without a warrant to look for the driver’s identification. Kruger described the “central issue” before the court as “not whether the search of” the driver’s car was “consistent with the guidance given in” an earlier case, but instead whether to “continue to adhere to” that earlier decision in light of U.S. Supreme Court cases since then.

Noting that the California decision had become an outlier, Kruger observed that although the California Supreme Court’s ruling had “attempted to cordon off” the power it gave to police officers, experience had shown that in practice, the searches have come “perilously close” to full searches of the cars. There are other ways for officers to obtain the information that they need, she suggested, such as asking a driver for her name and date of birth and cross-checking that information against the Department of Motor Vehicles database.

Addressing the dissent’s argument that, without carving out an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s general warrant requirement for cases like this one, “officers may not be able to achieve absolute certainty about the identity of some subset of traffic violators before issuing traffic tickets,” Kruger countered that “the test for whether an exception should be recognized is not whether, in its absence, there might be some cost in effective enforcement of the traffic laws.” Instead, she wrote, it is “whether the tradeoff to lower that risk is worth the coin in diminished privacy.” “It is not,” she concluded, “a price we should lightly require California drivers to pay.”

In 2018, Kruger wrote for a divided court – in an opinion joined by Cantil-Sakauye, Chin, and Corrigan – in rejecting a challenge to a state law that requires law enforcement officials to collect DNA samples and fingerprints from anyone arrested for a felony. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Maryland v. King, the majority concluded that the defendant in the case, Mark Buza, had been arrested for a serious offense – arson – and, at least as applied to him, the requirement therefore did not violate either the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment or the California constitution.

The majority did not weigh in on whether the law was valid for other defendants, and it rejected a suggestion – made by Liu and Cuellar, in dissenting opinions – that it determine whether the state can require a DNA sample before a judge determines that a defendant’s arrest was valid. Kruger stressed that the court’s holding was “limited,” and she explained that “the law teaches that we should ordinarily focus on the circumstances before us in determining whether the work of a coequal branch of government may stand or must fall.”

Kruger joined an opinion by Liu in 2019 that reinstated a challenge by psychotherapists to a state law that would require them to report to authorities patients who admit to viewing child pornography, even when the therapists don’t believe that the patients pose any harm to children. Writing for a four-justice majority, Liu acknowledged that the “proliferation of child pornography on the Internet is an urgent problem of national and international dimension,” but the court – over a dissent by Cantil-Sakauye, Chin, and Corrigan – concluded that the reporting requirement implicated an interest in privacy. Stressing that the court was not ruling that the reporting requirement was unconstitutional, Liu sent the case back to the lower courts for them to determine whether the reporting requirement actually advances the law’s purpose of protecting children, or whether it instead deters patients from seeking treatment for sexual disorders.

Kruger sided with the court’s conservative justices in a 4-3 ruling in 2017 that made it more difficult for inmates sentenced under the state’s “Three Strikes” law to obtain resentencing. In a separate concurring opinion joined by two of her colleagues, Kruger explained that the other provisions in the ballot initiative on which the inmates seeking resentencing relied reflected a “clear and exclusive focus on affording relief to individuals who have committed specified drug- and theft-related offenses, and neither the stated purposes of the proposition nor the ballot materials alerted voters to any possibility that a favorable vote might also result in a significant change to the separate statutory scheme governing the resentencing of life prisoners under the ‘Three Strikes’ law.” “Although this is certainly a choice the voters could make,” Kruger acknowledged, “I do not think we can say it is a choice the voters have already made.”

Under the California system, although Kruger was nominated by Brown and confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments, she was still required to face the voters in a “retention election,” without an opponent, in 2018. Kruger won retention easily, with nearly 73% of voters – 6.6 million in total – voting “yes.”

Personal life

Kruger is married to Brian Hauck, a partner at the law firm of Jenner & Block and a former senior official in the Department of Justice during the Obama administration. The couple has two children: a son and a daughter.

When she had their daughter in 2016, Kruger became the first California Supreme Court justice to give birth while in office. A 2018 story in the Los Angeles Times recounted how Kruger traveled from the San Francisco Bay area, where she lives, to Los Angeles with her newborn to hear oral arguments; Kruger’s mother-in-law cared for the baby, then four weeks old, while Kruger was working.

If Biden nominates Kruger, it will not be his administration’s first effort to get Kruger to return to the east coast. In January, Marcia Coyle and Ryan Barber of the National Law Journal reported that Kruger had twice turned down offers to serve as the administration’s solicitor general. Like a position as a Supreme Court justice, that job requires Senate confirmation – but a job as a Supreme Court justice comes with life tenure. 

*********************

Amy Howe is the former editor and a reporter for SCOTUSblog and still is a contributor. She primarily writes for her eponymous blog, Howe on the Court.

Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there.

Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.

*********************

The preceding article was previously published by SCOTUSBlog and is republished by permission.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Politics

Trans Rep. Leigh Finke’s championing progressive change in Minn.

She is championing & emphasizing the need to provide sanctuary for transgender individuals amidst escalating conservative backlash

Published

on

Trans Minnesota State Rep. Leigh Finke (D-66A) recently caught the attention of ultra right-wing influencer Chaya Raichik aka Libs of TikTok. (Photo Credit: Rep. Leigh Finke)

SAINT PAUL, Minn. – Trans Minnesota State Representative Leigh Finke recently caught the attention of ultra right-wing influencer Chaya Raichik who runs the Libs of TikTok on social media. In a post on X, Libs of TikTok misgendered Finke and called her out over a bill aimed at making Minnesota a safe refuge for transgender youths.

Finke, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) State Representative for District 66A in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, has emerged as a formidable force in the Minnesota Legislature. Since assuming office in 2023, Finke has spearheaded a wide array of progressive initiatives, earning praise for her unwavering commitment to advancing social justice and LGBTQ inclusivity across the state.

In an exclusive interview with The Blade, she discussed the significance of the legislation she is championing and emphasizing the need to provide sanctuary for transgender individuals amidst escalating conservative backlash.

Remaining Optimistic About Minnesota as a Queer Haven

(Photo Credit: Rep. Leigh Finke)

Finke, who was assaulted by two men on the light rail in 2018, about one year after she began transitioning, revealed the traumatic incident as part of her candid discussion about the difficulties of transitioning and the prevalence of violence against trans people.

“It was horrible,” Finke said, highlighting the pervasive nature of transphobia in society. “Transitioning was very difficult…That presence of violence is very real to me. I experienced it regularly.” 

“It’s hard to be a trans person in this world,” Finke added, acknowledging the uphill battle faced by transgender individuals

In the political sphere, the progressive initiatives endorsed by Finke have drawn fierce opposition from conservative quarters, sparking backlash on right-wing social media platforms and mainstream news networks like Fox News.

Finke attributes this backlash to the right-wing agenda which often leads to discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community. 

However, she expressed gratitude for the support of Minnesota voters, noting their consistent backing of queer rights and representation. She also said she was grateful for  the “I Stand with Leigh” campaign on social media, launched by her supporters as a response to the backlash. 

In spite of her opposition, Finke remains optimistic about Minnesota maintaining its support of the queer community, stating that the right’s false claims of trans people being “pedophiles” and “groomers” tends to remain confined within the right-wing “bubble.”

“We have strong leadership up and down, and we are making good on our promise to protect trans people,” Finke emphasized. 

Championing Progressive Change

Last year, amidst a backdrop of political upheaval, Finke played a pivotal role in the passage of groundbreaking legislation aimed at addressing key issues facing Minnesotans. From reproductive rights to environmental protection, Finke has been at the forefront of efforts to enact meaningful change.

One of Finke’s standout achievements has been her advocacy for bodily autonomy. She staunchly supported the PRO Act, the Reproductive Freedom Defense Act, and measures to expand abortion access, recognizing the fundamental importance of reproductive rights in ensuring equality and autonomy for all individuals.

In addition to her work on reproductive rights, Finke has been a leading voice in the fight against climate change. She has championed legislation to protect Minnesota’s natural spaces from harmful pesticides, while also advocating for comprehensive climate policies that prioritize sustainability and environmental justice.

Furthermore, Finke has been a vocal advocate for LGBTQ+ rights, authoring the Trans Refuge Law and pushing for increased funding for HIV prevention and treatment. She has been unwavering in her commitment to creating a more inclusive and affirming environment for LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly transgender and gender non-conforming Minnesotans.

(Photo Credit: Rep. Leigh Finke)

Beyond these issues, Finke has also made significant strides in advancing disability rights, education reform, public safety, and mental health initiatives. Her dedication to social justice is evident in her multifaceted approach to governance, which prioritizes the needs of marginalized communities and seeks to address systemic inequities at every turn.

Queer Equity Institute 

In addition to her legislative efforts, Finke runs a nonprofit organization called the Queer Equity Institute, dedicated to empowering LGBTQ+ individuals and fostering inclusivity. Ever candid about her own experiences with discrimination and violence,  she continues to emphasize the urgent need for solidarity and support within the community.

The Queer Equity Institute (QEI) is on a mission to foster inclusivity and empower LGBTQ+ communities through its multifaceted approach aimed at civic engagement, leadership development, educational programming, and fellowship opportunities.

(Photo Credit: Rep. Leigh Finke)

Recognizing the profound impact of government decisions on the lives of LGBTQ+ individuals, QEI emphasizes civic engagement at all levels of governance.

From local city councils to federal leadership, QEI strives to ensure that LGBTQ+ voices are not only heard but actively included in shaping policies and decisions.

Through initiatives like networking opportunities and resource provision, QEI works to dismantle barriers hindering queer participation in political processes, particularly those affecting queer BIPOC and individuals with disabilities.

Moreover, QEI is committed to nurturing the next generation of queer leaders through its educational programming. By providing support to LGBTQ+ students and school leaders, the institute aims to foster greater inclusivity within educational institutions and society at large. QEI recognizes that addressing hate and discrimination requires collaboration across various domains beyond politics, including art, culture, media, and business.

In addition to its advocacy and educational efforts, QEI offers fellowship programs designed to support LGBTQ+ individuals who aspire to lead but lack the necessary financial, institutional, and social resources. The institute provides $10,000 fellowships across four categories: Civic Engagement, Community Empowerment, Arts & Media, and Business Development, enabling recipients to pursue their goals of effecting positive change within their communities.

Continue Reading

Politics

24% of trans adults say access to care disrupted by new laws 

Several laws have been passed targeting trans people over the past year. Now, a Data For Progress poll shows 24% have seen care disrupted

Published

on

Trans Health Matters Campaign/Los Angeles Blade graphic

By Erin Reed | MISSOULA, Mont. – In recent years, several laws targeting transgender adults have been proposed or enacted. These laws eliminate Medicaid coverage for transgender healthcare, permit pharmacists and hospital systems to discriminate against transgender patients, and impose restrictions on providers in various ways.

Until recently, little information was available on how these new statutes affect transgender adults. While their care is often not explicitly prohibited, they may still experience disruptions due to anti-transgender laws. Now, a just released Data for Progress poll reveals that 24% of transgender adults have had their healthcare disrupted or discontinued as a result of anti-transgender legislation.

The survey, focusing on transgender and LGBTQ+ respondents, specifically questioned transgender individuals about the impact of anti-transgender policies or rhetoric on their lives. Among the transgender respondents, 24% reported that their access to gender-affirming care was interrupted or discontinued in the past year. Considering the Williams Institute’s estimation of 1.6 million transgender Americans, this percentage translates to more than 380,000 transgender adults whose care has been disrupted by recent anti-transgender legislation or rhetoric.

You can see the results of this poll question here:

While the survey does not detail the specific disruptions to healthcare access, a range of recent legislative actions and policy amendments may play a role. Several laws and updates in state policy have barred Medicaid from covering gender-affirming care. For example, South Carolina has recently revised its policy to eliminate coverage of transgender healthcare for individuals of all ages. In addition, states such as Florida have introduced strict restrictions, effectively banning up to 80% of all gender-affirming care for transgender adults within the state. A number of states have also enacted laws allowing religious-based medical discrimination against transgender individuals, allowing doctors, pharmacists, and even receptionists and cashiers to decline the dispensation of hormone prescriptions to transgender people. Furthermore, Idaho has recently passed legislation that prohibits the use of public funds or facilities for providing any gender-affirming care, potentially causing significant disruptions to transgender healthcare within the state.

The findings are significant, and show that transgender youth are not the only ones impacted by recent anti-transgender legislation. In addition to the 50% of transgender youth that live in states that have barred or heavily restricted gender affirming care, transgender adults appear to also be impacted by recent anti-trans legislation and rhetoric.

The consequences of recent legislation and rhetoric extend beyond disruptions in medical care. The survey also inquired about the concerns transgender individuals have regarding discrimination and harassment. The findings are alarming: 68% of transgender adults express concern about facing discrimination and harassment in restrooms, 64% report similar apprehensions about nightclubs, and 62% fear engaging in public displays of affection with their partners. As a result of these concerns, 44% of transgender adults indicate they have contemplated relocating or have already relocated from their community or state due to anti-LGBTQ+ legislation.

See this question of high levels of concern from transgender people over several basic activities:

Anti-transgender policies targeting adults seem to be increasingly prevalent. In several states, legislation has been proposed and passed to end all legal recognition of transgender individuals.

Additionally, recent audio recordings from Republican legislators in Ohio and Michigan reveal an “endgame” aimed at ending transgender care “for everyone.” Before this latest poll, the extent of the disruption caused by these laws and policies on transgender adults was largely unclear. Many are now finding themselves forced to leave their states simply to access necessary care.

****************************************************************************

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

Continue Reading

Politics

Out Maryland state lawmaker angles for seat in Congress

27-year-old gay lawmaker running for seat would make history as first Latino, first gay man & first Gen Zer elected to Congress from Maryland

Published

on

Maryland state Del. Joe Vogel (D-Montgomery County) (Photo courtesy of Joe Vogel)

WASHINGTON – Maryland state Del. Joe Vogel (D-Montgomery County) on Monday said it is time for a new generation of leaders in Congress.

The Montgomery County Democrat last May declared his candidacy for Maryland’s 6th Congressional District after Congressman David Trone announced his run for retiring U.S. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.)’s seat. Vogel, 27, would be the first Latino, the first gay man and the first Gen Zer elected to Congress from Maryland if he were to win in November.

“We need a new generation of leadership with new perspectives, new ideas and the courage to actually deliver for our communities if we want things to get better in this country,” Vogel told the Washington Blade during an interview at the Line Hotel in Adams Morgan.

Protecting democracy among priorities

Vogel was born in Uruguay and immigrated to Rockville with his family when he was three years old.

He volunteered for former President Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. Vogel, who is Jewish, in 2014 worked for Maryland state Sen. Cheryl Kagan (D-Montgomery County)’s campaign.

He was part of Hillary Clinton’s National Advance Team during her 2016 presidential campaign, and worked on former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s 2017 gubernatorial bid. Vogel later joined the March for Our Lives movement for gun control that began after a gunman killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., on Feb. 14, 2018.

Vogel in 2020 worked for U.S. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)’s presidential campaign. The Montgomery County Democrat in 2022 became the first Gen Zer to win a seat in the Maryland General Assembly. 

Vogel pointed out to the Blade that he has introduced 18 bills in this year’s legislative session. 

One of them, a bill that would prohibit the state from giving foster children in their custody trash bags for them to transport their belongings, passed unanimously in the House on March 14. Other measures that Vogel has sponsored would, among other things, provide security grants to abortion clinics and increase investments in local newspapers.

“I have a record of being able to deliver results,” he said. “That’s what I’m running on.”

Vogel pointed out to the Blade that his platform includes:

  • • Protecting democracy
  • • Preventing “attacks on fundamental rights”
  • • Fighting climate change
  • • Stopping gun violence

Vogel also noted his support for the Equality Act, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity to federal civil rights laws.

“At a moment of time when you have attacks against the LGBTQ+ community, against our rights, against our identities, I believe that there’s nothing more powerful than electing Maryland’s first openly LGBTQ+ member of Congress,” he said.

Vogel added his election would send “a message to all the young LGBTQ+ people across the state that they belong, and that they have someone in the United States Congress who understands them and is going to fight for them every single day,” added Vogel.

Vogel’s great-grandparents fled Europe ahead of the Holocaust. Uruguay’s military dictatorship was in place from 1973-1985. 

His multiple identities remain a cornerstone of his legislative priorities and of his campaign.

“When we talk about the attacks on LGBTQ+ people, I get that. I feel that,” said Vogel. “I understand that when we talk about the attacks on immigrant communities … not only do I understand that, personally, but I’m around so many immigrants that feel that pain of what we’ve seen over the last many years of the incessant attacks on immigrants and Latino people. When we see the rise in anti-Semitism, I feel that personally.”

HRC, Victory Fund have endorsed Vogel

The Democratic primary will take place on May 14.

April McClain Delaney, a former U.S. Department of Commerce official whose husband is former Congressman John Delaney, and state Del. Lesley Lopez (D-Montgomery County) are among Vogel’s primary opponents. Former state Del. Dan Cox, an anti-LGBTQ Republican who unsuccessfully ran for governor in 2022, is also running for Trone’s seat.

Campaign finance reports indicate Vogel raised $379,755.91 between May 4, 2023, and Dec. 31, 2023. McClain Delaney reported she received $536,557 in campaign contributions from Oct. 1, 2023, to Dec. 31, 2023.

The Human Rights Campaign, the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, Equality PAC and the Sierra Club are among the organizations that have endorsed Vogel’s campaign. U.S. Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Mark Takano (D-Calif.) and Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) and Frederick County Council President Brad Young are among those who have also backed him. The Maryland State Education Association and the National Education Association this week endorsed Vogel.

Vogel dismissed suggestions that he does not have enough legislative experience to run for Congress and that he is too young.

“When you’re elected to Congress, you’re elected for a two-year term,” he said. “Look at what I’ve been able to accomplish in a two-year term. I’ve proven that I can hit the ground running, get results, deliver results.”

Vogel added the race to succeed Trone in Congress is “me versus the status quo.”

“We need a new generation of leadership with new perspectives, new ideas and the courage to actually deliver for our communities if we actually want things to get better in this country,” said Vogel.

Democratic opponent gave money to Jim DeMint

Former Republican Gov. Larry Hogan last month announced he is running for U.S. Senate. Prince George’s County Executive Director Angela Alsobrooks is also hoping to succeed Cardin.

Vogel sharply criticized Cox. 

“He is as bigoted as it gets,” Vogel told the Blade. “He is a far-right extremist who bussed people to D.C. on Jan. 6, who is as homophobic as it gets, and who is as transphobic as it gets.”

Vogel said Maryland voters in November “need to reject Dan Cox” and “we have to reject Larry Hogan.” (Vogel has endorsed Trone’s Senate campaign.)

“We have to elect pro-equality members of Congress this November, to finally secure the protections that we need for our community in Congress,” said Vogel.

Vogel also vowed to “do everything in my power to ensure that” former President Donald Trump does not win re-election in November.

“Three generations in my family: My great-grandparents, my grandparents, my parents experienced the loss of democracy,” Vogel told the Blade. “My great-grandparents escaped fascism. My grandparents and parents lived under a repressive military dictatorship in Uruguay, and I see the concern that my parents feel seeing the rise of Trump.”

“I refuse to be the fourth generation in my family who experienced the loss of democracy,” he added. “This November, the election fundamentally is going to decide the future of our democracy.”

Vogel on Sunday during a forum the Frederick County Democratic Party sponsored criticized McClain Delaney over her 2005 campaign donation to then-U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) after he said gay people should not be teachers.

“I can’t imagine making any sort of political contribution to any anti-LGBTQ+, anti-choice, pro-NRA member of the United States Senate, and let alone the maximum allowed contribution,” said Vogel. “There is a stark contrast there.”

‘My heart breaks for what we saw on’ Oct. 7

Vogel spoke with the Blade less than six months after Hamas launched a surprise attack against southern Israel.

“It was the deadliest attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust,” he said. “What concerns me is that Hamas has made clear that they intend to carry out an attack like that again and again and again and again.”

“My heart breaks for what we saw on that day,” added Vogel.

Vogel is among those who attended a pro-Israel rally that took place on the National Mall last November. He has also met with relatives of hostages who remain in the Gaza Strip.

“Hearing the stories of parents whose kids are still in Gaza, the pain that I feel is tremendous,” said Vogel. “We have to bring those hostages home.”

Vogel told the Blade that Hamas can no longer control Gaza. He also said peace cannot be achieved with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in office.

“If we want to reach peace, a number of things have to happen: Hamas needs to go. We need a change in leadership in Israel and we need diplomatic negotiations to get a bilateral ceasefire, which is not what I think people are calling for when they call for an immediate ceasefire.”

Vogel last October posted to his X account pictures of anti-Semitic graffiti in his apartment building.

He told the Blade the graffiti was removed, but “it took a very long time.” Vogel has introduced a bill that would require the removal of graffiti in a specific period of time if it violates Maryland’s hate crimes law.

Book bans ‘have absolutely no place’

Vogel during the interview also criticized Moms for Liberty and their efforts to ban books in Maryland. He noted Jaime Brennan, the chair of the group’s Frederick County chapter, is running for the county’s Board of Education.

“Book bans in a free democratic society have absolutely no place,” said Vogel.

The Maryland House on March 15 by a 98-37 vote margin approved the Freedom to Read Act. The measure would create a “state policy that local school systems operate their school library media programs consistent with certain standards,” require “each local school system to develop a policy and procedures to review objections to materials in a school library media program” and ban “a county board of education from dismissing, demoting, suspending, disciplining, reassigning, transferring or otherwise retaliating against certain school library media program personnel for performing their job duties consistent with certain standards.”

The bill is now before the Senate Education, Energy and the Environment Committee.

Continue Reading

Politics

First Lady highlights attacks on LGBTQ+ rights at HRC’s LA dinner

MAGA extremists are seeking to erase these hard-fought gains, trying to unwind all progress we’ve made- We’re going to fight & we will win

Published

on

First Lady Dr. Jill Biden speaks onstage during the Human Rights Campaign’s 2024 Los Angeles Dinner at the Fairmont Century Plaza Hotel on March 23, 2024 in Los Angeles, California. (Screenshot/YouTube HRC)

LOS ANGELES, Calif. – In her remarks Saturday evening to the people attending the Human Rights Campaign’s 2024 Los Angeles Dinner at the Fairmont Century Plaza Hotel, First Lady Jill Biden took direct aim at what she labeled as MAGA extremists attempting to instill fear in the LGBTQ+ community by legislative attacks on the marginalized community’s rights.

Biden, in reference to the federal budget package passed by Congress on Friday to avert a government shutdown, told the audience:

“Today, this community is under attack. Rights are being stripped away. Freedoms are eroding. More and more state laws are being passed targeting this community. Just last night, we had to fend off more than 50 anti-gay amendments that Republicans tried to force into the government funding bill.”

She added: “These were extreme measures aimed directly at this community – measures that would have limited healthcare, eroded protections for same-sex couples, and more. And they served only one purpose: to spread hate and fear.”

Cautioning that history showed that “democracies don’t disappear overnight,” Biden warned, “They disappear slowly. Subtly. Silently. A book ban. A court decision. A “don’t say gay” law. One group of people loses their rights. And then another, and another. Until one morning you wake up – and you no longer live in a democracy.”

The First Lady also made mention of the 16-year-old trans Oklahoma high school student whose death last month was ruled a suicide and had garnered national attention:

“Laws and attitudes can lead to devastating consequences – harm that can’t be undone, that leaves parents torn by grief. Parents and grandparents like Sue Benedict – may Nex rest in peace – and the countless others who have lost LGBTQ children to suicide, bullying, and hate. Parents who have stood by their kids, loved them, learned from them, but who will never have another tomorrow with them. This is our chapter of history – and it’s up to us how it ends,” she said.

“Yes, the MAGA extremists are seeking to erase these hard-fought gains, trying to unwind all the progress we’ve made. They want us to be afraid,” she stressed.

Biden then assured the audience: “They want to take our victories away, but we won’t let them. Your President won’t let them.  I won’t let them. We’re going to fight. And we will win.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Massive defeat for anti-trans & anti-LGBTQ+ riders in spending bill

Over 40 anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ+ riders were defeated during budget negotiations with Republicans by Democrats

Published

on

U.S. Capitol Dome
U.S. Capitol Dome (Photo Credit: Michael Key/Washington Blade)

By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – On Thursday, Congress unveiled the much-anticipated spending bill to avert a government shutdown. The bill, which includes funding for major government departments such as Health and Human Services and Education, featured fierce negotiations over conservative “policy riders.” 

These policy riders included bans on coverage for gender-affirming care, DEI bans, sports bans, and more. Despite some indications that Democrats might compromise due to the sheer number of conservative policy riders, it appears those fears did not come to fruition. Democrats held firm in negotiations, and the most impactful anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ+ riders were nowhere to be found.

One policy rider proposed for the Food and Drug Administration would have defunded any hospital that “distributes, sells, or otherwise uses drugs that disrupt the onset of puberty or sexual development for those under 18,” a measure targeting not only transgender youth but also those experiencing precocious puberty. 

Another rider sought to bar any government funding toward “surgical procedures or hormone therapy for the purposes of gender-affirming care” in the Department of Health and Human Services. This move would have significantly impacted private and subsidized insurance in the Healthcare Marketplace. It also aimed to bar the enforcement of President Biden’s executive order titled “Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity,” which broadened anti-discrimination protections for transgender individuals.

Additional riders included bans on funding for any organization that “promotes transgenderism,” Title IX protections for transgender youth, bans on legal challenges against states over anti-LGBTQ+ laws, book bans, DEI bans, and more.

In total, over 40 riders were proposed and negotiated in the spending bills. None of these were found in the final bill

Ultimately, the final spending bill released contained only a single anti-LGBTQ+ rider: a ban on pride flags being raised or displayed above foreign embassies. The policy, while certainly qualifying as anti-LGBTQ+ and a regression to Trump-era policies, notably does not bar personal displays of Pride flags by embassy workers.

In the past, some embassies have gotten around such bans by not “flying a flag over the embassy” but rather, painting portions of the embassy in rainbow colors or draping flags on the side of buildings.

News of the defeat of the most impactful anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ+ riders comes after a significant push from Equality Caucus Democrats and the Biden Administration against the riders. “As you negotiate government funding for Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24), we write to strongly urge you to reject any attempts to include anti-LGBTQ+ provisions in any final FY24 funding agreement,” said a letter signed by 163 representatives on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus to the Biden Administration.

However, Republicans also pushed hard for their inclusion. In a shutdown threat issued February 21st from the House Freedom Caucus, Republicans indicated that bans on gender affirming care and transgender participation in sports were necessary to prevent a potential shutdown.

Previously, Representative Dan Crenshaw stated that such bans are the “hill we will die on.” In a report published by Axios, one Republican lawmaker stated, “People are predicting a shutdown even if it’s just for a few days.” Others concurred, citing gender affirming care riders as one of the potential reasons for such a shutdown.

Many anti-LGBTQ+ leaders in the Republican Party reacted negatively to the bill. Rep. Matt Gaetz expressed anger at funding for the New Jersey Garden State Equality in Education Fund, calling it “force feeding the LGBT agenda in schools” and stating that it enables “gender mutilation surgeries in minors,” “biological men” in women’s bathrooms, and transgender participation in sports.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene decried the lack of a DEI ban. Rep. Andrew Clyde stated that Republicans “surrendered” to Democrats on hormone therapy. The House Freedom Caucus published a lengthy list of healthcare and equality centers that the budget would fund, urging the GOP to vote “no” and to shut down the government.

In a press release published by House Appropriations Democrats, they stated that the bill rejected over a hundred poison-pill riders, many of which targeted LGBTQ+ people. For example, the Labor-HHS-Education portion of the bill blocked provisions around gender affirming care, sports bans, and nondiscrimination.

See the House Appropriations Democrats statement:

Press release, House Appropriations Democrats on Labor-HHS-Education

The bill must pass by Friday evening to avert a government shutdown, though the impacts of such a shutdown would likely not be felt until Monday. If passed, the bill would keep the government funded through September, at which point all of the riders could resurface during the peak of the 2024 presidential election.

However, for the next several months, LGBTQ+ riders will not pose a significant threat in a year where transgender and queer individuals have faced attacks at historic levels.

****************************************************************************

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

Continue Reading

California Politics

Gay Assemblymember Evan Low short 12 votes in U.S. House bid

South Bay U.S. House race with gay Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Cupertino) still too close to call nearly two weeks after March 5 primary

Published

on

Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Cupertino) at an event in Sacramento in late 2023. (Photo Credit: Office of Assemblymember Evan Low)

By Matthew S. Bajko, Assistant Editor | SAN JOSE, Calif. – Gay Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Cupertino) has once again seen his vote deficit decrease as the remaining ballots in his primary race for an open South Bay U.S. House seat are tabulated. As of Monday, he is trailing in third place by 12 votes.

Low has been locked in a tough fight for second place with Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian since the March 5 primary. Only the top two finishers will move on to the November 5 ballot.

Coming in first place is former San Jose mayor Sam Liccardo. Either Low or Simitian will compete against him to succeed Congressmember Anna Eshoo (D-Palo Alto). She opted not to seek reelection to her 16th Congressional District seat, which spans San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.

San Mateo elections officials have 20 ballots left to count and will next post an update by 4:30 p.m. Wednesday. The county registrar noted that are 680 challenged ballots that can be “cured” before 5 p.m. on April 2, meaning those voters have a chance to address the irregularity found with their ballot in order to have it be counted.

Another update from Santa Clara’s registrar will come by 5 p.m. Tuesday, as the county’s elections officials are whittling down the 1,400 ballots they had left as of Saturday. The county also reported having 1,200 challenged ballots pending due to issues with voters’ signatures.

Liccardo’s current total is 38,421 votes. Simitian now has 30,204 votes, while Low is is closely trailing behind with 30,192 votes.

Low’s campaign has not issued comment since last week, when it posted on X March 13 that it was waiting for “all votes being counted in this race.” That Wednesday, Low had taken the lead for second place for the first time in the primary race.

By Friday he had see-sawed back into third place. But with each new vote count Low has inched closer toward Simitian’s second place standing.

A campaign spokesman for Low did not respond Monday to the Bay Area Reporter’s inquiry if it was asking its supporters to ensure their ballots don’t need to be cured or have been challenged.

Low is vying to become the first LGBTQ congressmember from the Bay Area. In the East Bay race to succeed outgoing Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Oakland), who failed to survive the March 5 primary race for the seat long held by the late U.S. senator Dianne Feinstein, queer candidate Jennifer Kim-Anh Tran, Ph.D., is seen as the underdog of her runoff race on the November 5 ballot.

She came out of the primary for the District 12 House seat in Alameda County far behind BART board member Lateefah Simon, who is currently in first place with 56% of the vote. Tran trails in second with 14.7%.

Of the two Democrats, Simon has received the bulk of support from the party and other Democratic leaders. Lee endorsed Simon in late January, followed by the state’s two Democratic U.S. Senators, Alex Padilla and Laphonza Butler, in early February.

Butler, a lesbian, chose not to seek a full term after being appointed last fall to fill the vacancy created by the death of Feinstein. She is expected to step down after the November election, in which Congressmember Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) is now favored to win against Republican Steve Garvey, a retired baseball player.

Southern California House races

In the race to succeed Schiff (D-Burbank) in his District 30 House seat, first-place finisher Assemblymember Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) is the odds-on favorite to win come November in the heavily Democratic district, which includes the LGBTQ enclave of West Hollywood. Her opponent will be gay Republican Dr. Alex Balekian, an ICU physician who is Armenian American.

Equality California, the statewide LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, last week endorsed Friedman in the race. It also endorsed Democrat Joe Kerr, a retired fire captain who is moving on to the runoff race for the District 40 House seat against Congressmember Young Kim (R- Placentia.)

“We are thrilled to endorse these pro-equality champions running for Congress,” stated EQCA Executive Director Tony Hoang. “The challenges we continue to face in creating a world that is just and fully equal for all LGBTQ+ people demand that we elect representatives who will work to defend our hard-fought gains, as well as continue to lead the charge in the ongoing fight for full, lived equality. The road to regaining a pro-equality majority in the House runs through California, and we look forward to supporting these candidates throughout election season.”

Three Southern California House races will feature fall rematches between the incumbent and their gay opponent. Congressmember Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles) is fending off another challenge from gay Democrat David Kim for his District 34 House seat, having defeated the progressive lawyer in 2022.

In an email to his supporters Tuesday, Kim asked them “to recommit ourselves to the task at hand, let us redouble our efforts, and let us continue to stand together as we march towards victory in November. I am proud to have you on this journey with me, and I am confident that, together, we will prevail.”

After defending his seat two years ago, Congressmember Ken Calvert (R-Corona) is again facing a challenge for his District 41 House seat from lawyer Will Rollins. With the gay retirement and resort town of Palm Springs now a part of it, where Rollins and his partner live, Democrats are targeting the seat as a pickup opportunity this year.

“The Cook Political Report reaffirmed their classification of our race as a ‘toss-up,’ and Punchbowl News is calling this the second most important race in the entire country for control of the House,” noted Rollins in a March 15 emailed fundraising pitch to his supporters.

Facing even longer odds to win the District 23 House seat in the high country east of Los Angeles is progressive activist Derek Marshall, who lost to Congressmember Jay Obernolte (R-Hesperia) in 2022. Marshall’s share of this year’s primary vote is currently at 36.5%.

The state’s current two gay Congressmembers, Mark Takano of Riverside and Robert Garcia of Long Beach, both easily won their primary races. The pair is expected to easily defeat their Republican opponents in the fall.

related

Challenging Takano for his District 39 House seat is David Serpa. Opposing Garcia for his District 42 seat is John Briscoe.

California is currently the only West Coast state with LGBTQ representation in Congress, though candidates in Oregon and Washington are aiming to change that this year. Democrats Jamie McLeod-Skinner and Eddy Morales aim to survive their May 21 party-based primary races.

McLeod-Skinner, a lesbian former councilmember in the Bay Area city of Santa Clara, is running again for Oregon’s District 5 House seat after falling short in 2022. She aims to take on a second time Republican Congressmember Lori Chavez-DeRemer of Happy Valley.

Morales is seeking the Beaver State’s open District 3 House seat, as Congressmember Earl Blumenauer (D-Portland) opted not to seek reelection this year. The queer Grisham City Councilmember is expected to attend a March 23 fundraiser in San Francisco being hosted by a number of local LGBTQ leaders.

Washington State holds its primary August 6, and like California, it selects congressional candidates based on a top-two system. Queer Democratic state Senator Emily Randall, a former Bay Area resident, aims to succeed Congressmember Derek Kilmer (D-Gig Harbor) in the Puget Sound region.

She would be the first out congressmember from the Evergreen State. But Randall is facing a tough campaign, as Kilmer endorsed Washington Public Lands Commissioner Hilary Franz to succeed him.

**************************************************************************************

The preceding article was previously published by the Bay Area Reporter and is republished with permission.

Help keep the Bay Area Reporter going in these tough times. To support local, independent, LGBTQ journalism, consider becoming a BAR member.

Continue Reading

Political commentary & analysis

Southern states push bills ending legal recognition for trans people

Louisiana, Mississippi, & Alabama all advancing bills that “define sex” to exclude trans people from any legal recognition of their gender

Published

on

Los Angeles Blade graphic

By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – The pace of anti-transgender legislation has slowed in recent weeks, with several states, known for previously targeting transgender individuals, failing to pass any such laws.

However, a different dynamic is emerging across the Gulf South, where three states are advancing bills that would cease the legal recognition of transgender individuals, potentially having significant repercussions for their trans residents. Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama are introducing bills to define sex in a manner that excludes transgender individuals, potentially affecting birth certificates, driver’s licenses, bathroom access, and more.

The bills, dubbed the “Women’s Bills of Rights” by their supporters, fall far short of actually protecting women’s rights. They fail to protect access to birth control or abortion, do not ensure equitable pay, neither allocate funds for nor promote women’s athletics, and lack any provisions designed to curb violence against women. Instead, they categorize sex based on reproductive capabilities and ends legal recognition of transgender individuals’ gender identities.

In Louisiana, House Bill 608 was introduced with a staggering 63 Republican co-sponsors, signaling a strong opposition to any efforts to lobby against the bill. While its primary focus seems to be on restricting bathroom access in schools, prisons, and shelters, a particular section of the bill indicates that “any provision of law enacted by the legislature or any rule adopted by a state agency or other entity subject to the Administrative Procedures Act when applicable to an individual’s sex shall apply those definitions provided in R.S. 9:58.” This provision could lead to the banning of changes to birth certificates and driver’s licenses, effectively ending all legal recognition for transgender individuals. The bill has not yet been scheduled for a hearing, but given the substantial support it has garnered, its progression through the legislative process is anticipated to be swift once it begins.

In Mississippi, Senate Bill 2753 and House Bill 1607 have successfully passed their respective chambers. House Bill 1607 defines sex based on reproductive capacity, and puzzlingly states that for transgender individuals, “equal” does not mean “same” or “identical.” Notably, the bill does not provide a definition for “equal,” a term also left undefined in similar legislation in other states. This ambiguity sparked debate over a comparable bill in Iowa, which is currently stalled in the legislature there in part because of disagreements over that line. As for Senate Bill 2753, it would ban bathroom access for transgender individuals in publicly owned facilities, such as rest stops and the Jacksonville airport.

In Alabama, House Bills 111 and 130 similarly target transgender individuals. House Bill 111 specifies sex based on reproductive capacity for all vital statistics purposes. Meanwhile, HB 130, although not directly defining sex, will reportedly be amended to add language that extends “Don’t Say Gay” legislation to Space Camp. This addition comes after conservative media expressed outrage over a transgender individual being employed at the state’s renowned Space Camp and could be used to target transgender employees in state facilities.

So far, only five states have passed similar legislation: Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah. In Kansas, a judge has recently ruled in favor of Attorney General Kris Kobach that drivers licenses and birth certificates must contain transgender people’s old assigned sex at birth, citing the law there. Meanwhile, although such a law does not exist in Florida, rule changes have resulted in a lack of ability for transgender people to change their drivers licenses; reportedly, Florida residents are unable to change their birth certificates as well. Additionally, Oklahoma and Nebraska have executive orders defining sex similarly.

You can see a map of states from the Movement Advancement Project with such legislation here:

Movement Advancement Project. “Equality Maps: Defining ‘Sex’ to Allow Discrimination.”. Accessed 3/18/2024.

Should these bills become law, an increasing number of states will not legally recognize transgender individuals. The implications of such legislation are profound: individuals who have long since updated their identity documents may face the reversion of those documents back to their assigned sex at birth. These state-issued identification documents could then be employed to enforce additional anti-transgender laws, including bathroom bans. Moreover, these restrictions are bound to create complications for transgender individuals who have legally updated their federal documents to align with their gender identity, as these documents would conflict with their state-issued ones.

There have been calls for a federal legal response to bills that outlaw gender markers and refuse legal recognition to transgender people. For instance, in Florida, the entire Democratic congressional delegation asked the Biden Administration to use the Real ID act, which mandates “gender” be listed on drivers licenses. There has been no response to that request as of Monday.

Multiple lawsuits are underway trying to reverse the laws in court where they have passed, but the legal outcomes are currently pending.

****************************************************************************

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

Continue Reading

California Politics

Prosecuting the status quo, Rollins is running for a U.S. House seat

He stressed the urgency of passing the Equality Act to combat discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity

Published

on

Courtesy of Will Rollins

PALM SPRINGS, Calif. – In a bid to challenge the status quo and bring accountability to Washington, former federal prosecutor Will Rollins has advanced to the ballot in his pursuit of a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives to represent California’s 41st Congressional District this November.

He will face Republican incumbent Ken Calvert in a rematch of the 2022 campaign for the seat that saw Rollins defeated by Calvert. Of the total vote count of 236,638, Calvert garnered 123,869 votes to Rollins’ 112,769.

Rollins is a seasoned legal professional with a focus on counterterrorism and counterintelligence cases. His decision to run for Congress stems from a deep-rooted concern for the threats facing democracy and communities, exacerbated by what he perceives as the extremism and corruption entrenched in current political structures.

Rollins lives in the desert city of Palm Springs with his partner of 13 years, Paolo Benvenuto. While they have no children of their own, Rollins emphasized that they love their role of being “Guncles” to their nieces and nephews. 

Courtesy of Will Rollins

Rollins’s upbringing in a family with bipartisan affiliations has deeply influenced his perspective on governance and reform. 

Growing up amidst discussions of legal proceedings and journalistic pursuits, Rollins developed a multifaceted understanding of societal dynamics and the importance of a free press. His father’s career as a journalist, including an encounter with notorious serial killer Ted Bundy, imbued Rollins with a deep respect for the power of print media in shaping public discourse and holding authority to account.

“I was raised to appreciate the intricate balance between law enforcement’s duty to protect and uphold constitutional rights,” Rollins said. “It’s about ensuring safety while also safeguarding individual liberties and holding those in power accountable.”

Rollins’s journey from the courtroom to the campaign trail embodies a fusion of legal acumen, familial influence, and a commitment to democratic ideals. 

As he progresses through the primaries, Rollins seeks to bridge partisan divides and champion a platform rooted in justice, integrity, and the collective well-being of Californians in the 41st District.

A Personal Journey Toward Equality

The catalyst for Rollins’s interest in counterintelligence and military service traces back to a pivotal moment during his junior year of high school. He recalled the profound impact the events of 9/11 had on his worldview. 

“My heightened interest came  when I was junior year in high school, and I went into my first class of the day which was Model UN. We watched on the West Coast as the North Tower collapsed. That had a profound impact on me seeing other Americans covered in ash, and being scared. I remember being scared.” 

It was around this time that Rollins toyed with the idea of following in the footsteps of his veteran grandparents and enlisting in the military. However, being closeted in a society where discriminatory laws like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” prevailed added layers of complexity to his decision.

“Being closeted and watching the stories of Arabic linguist being discharged under don’t ask don’t tell at the time created very complicated and difficult emotion to experience as kid. You want to serve your country and you want to be part of a team, but you have your government telling you that there is something defective about you and that you pose a threat to national security. That is horrible. I don’t think any kid should grow up feeling that.”

He emphasizes the detrimental effects of discriminatory laws on individuals and society as a whole, advocating for equality and merit-based opportunities for all Americans.

“That experience did shape a lot of my outlook on antidiscrimination laws, and why quality and freedom for everybody makes the whole country stronger. You have to let people thrive based on merit, not based on what they look like or who they love.”

Reflecting on his delayed coming out, Rollins acknowledges the regret and internal conflict he grappled with for years. 

Courtesy of Will Rollins

“I regret not being able to accept myself sooner because it was so limiting you end up living your life for fear of what other people think rather than for yourself that has a major impact, not an individuals but our society collectively, and that’s part of the argument that I always try to make to voters.”

Advocacy for LGBTQ+ Rights and Economic Thriving

Rollins emphasized the critical need for advocacy and support for LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly in Riverside County.

“Growing up in the greater LA area where people assume that it is progressive, and they assume that everybody embraces LGBT rights and that they have for a long time. Unfortunately, that is just not the reality.” 

When the the Murrieta Valley Unified School District adopted neighboring Chino Valley Unified’s policy notifying parents of student gender identity, Rollins said that fighting for LGBTQ+ rights and protection in California is at the forefront of his concerns. 

“You hear people talking about LGBT kids as dangerous. There is a reversion to this 1950’s idea that being LGBT is contagious fueled by the rhetoric on the Right about grooming,” he said.

Rollins passionately articulated the importance of representation and empowerment for LGBTQ+ youth, stressing the message that there is nothing wrong with being true to oneself. “We need to punch back as LGBTQ+ elected officials; that is really important,” Rollins asserted. “You have to make kids know that there is nothing wrong with them and that they should be proud of who they are.”

Furthermore, Rollins condemned the far-right’s obsession with demonizing vulnerable populations, particularly through legislative measures targeting LGBTQ+ individuals. He criticized laws such as mandatory outing bills and teacher surveillance laws, which he believes undermine the principles of small government touted by traditional Republican values.

“The traditional John McCain, small government, and Dwight Eisenhower Republicans wouldn’t recognize the modern turn that the GOP has taken,” Rollins said. 

Highlighting  the detrimental impact of such policies, not only on the targeted individuals but also on the broader community and economy, Rollins cited the example of a gay pediatric surgeon in New Orleans who left the state due to discriminatory legislation targeting LGBTQ+ families. This departure not only affected the surgeon and his family, but also deprived the community of vital medical expertise, illustrating the far-reaching consequences of targeting LGBTQ+ individuals.

The example underscored the urgent need for advocacy to combat discrimination and promote inclusivity, emphasizing that the well-being and prosperity of the community are intertwined with the protection of LGBTQ+ rights. 

Struggles with Identity and Society’s Perceptions

Rollins shared the challenges he faced in coming to terms with his identity and the pervasive societal stereotypes that influenced his journey.

Rollins revealed that it wasn’t until his early twenties that he found the courage to come out, attributing his prolonged denial to growing up in a community where the existence of gay individuals was largely unseen or dismissed. 

“The image that I had from society and from my peers was that gay people were jokes; we were the comic relief,” Rollins lamented.

Despite growing up in a progressive family, Rollins recalled the impact of societal attitudes, particularly within sports culture, on his perception of masculinity and sexuality.

“I didn’t think I could be good at sports and be gay,” Rollins admitted. “That was the rhetoric perpetuated by the coaches.” 

Rollins described the prevalence of derogatory language and stereotypes, perpetuated by peers and coaches alike, which led him to internalize feelings of inadequacy and denial about his own identity.

“When you are a young man and about to get in a fight, what are the first words that come out of your opponent’s mouth? They call you a faggot to demoralize you and emasculate you, regardless of your actual orientation.”

Rollins highlighted the profound effect of societal demonization of gay individuals, emphasizing the difficulty for young people to navigate their identity without visible role models or support systems. 

“You get into a position where you start denying who you are to yourself because you think that it makes you less than.”

Rollins said it took him many years to realize that the issue lay not with himself, but with a society that perpetuated harmful stereotypes and discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community – stereotypes he hopes to help eradicate if he is elected to office. 

Priorities for Congressional Term

Rollins laid out his key priorities should he be elected, ranging from civil rights to economic revitalization.

Courtesy of Will Rollins

Rollins, who played a role as a Assistant U.S. Attorney in tracking down individuals involved in the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, expressed his frustration with incumbent Congressman Calvert’s actions, particularly regarding the certification of the election results and his stance on LGBTQ+ rights. Rollins cited Calvert’s voting record of homophobia as motivating factors for his decision to run for office.

“You shouldn’t be fired from your job or kicked out of your home just for being gay that is still a possibility in America.”

Among Rollins’s top priorities is the protection of voting rights, emphasizing the importance of ensuring equal access to the ballot box for all Americans. He also stressed the urgency of passing the Equality Act to combat discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, highlighting the need for comprehensive federal protections.

Addressing local concerns, Rollins emphasized the need for improved infrastructure in Riverside County, particularly to alleviate traffic congestion. 

“Traffic sucks whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat,” Rollins said. “I think we can all agree on that.”

He also criticized corporate greed, which he believes is driving up prices and exacerbating financial strain on middle-class families.

“Corporate greed right now is driving up prices for average working families in so many different contacts, whether it’s baby formula or milk, whether it’s your groceries or your gas. A lot of this is driven by massive concentration of wealth by corporations and individuals who pay for less in taxes than nurses, cops, and firefighters. This is a fundamental issue that Washington has let go for way too long.”

Rollins highlighted Palm Springs as an example of effective governance, praising the city’s inclusive policies and economic growth. He emphasized the importance of visible representation for the LGBTQ+ community and underscored the economic benefits of creating welcoming and inclusive communities.

Additionally, Rollins pledged to prioritize women’s rights, including the codification of Roe v. Wade into federal law, in response to concerns about reproductive rights and access to healthcare.

“Women’s rights right now are at the forefront of my priorities,” Rollins told The Blade. 

As Rollins continues his campaign, his platform reflects a commitment to social justice, economic prosperity, and inclusive governance, with a focus on addressing the pressing needs of Riverside County residents. If elected, Rollins aims to bring his experience and values to Congress, advocating for meaningful change and progress on behalf of his constituents.

Closing Thoughts

Rollins gave the following message for young queer leaders of tomorrow.
“The American dream is a possibility for you too. We are going to work hard every single day to make sure it becomes a reality. I hate to use the cliché, It gets better, but it really does and once you find your family, the possibilities are endless. I know it can be really dark sometimes. I’ve been there myself. But we are resilient and your resilience will pay in the long run too. I think that 2024 is going to send a lot of people who believe in our freedom of equality into Congress and so stay optimistic and thank you for hanging in there.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Dallas Harris, community advocacy & dedication to public service

Her vision for a more livable and diverse city promises to shape the future trajectory of one of the nation’s most dynamic urban centers

Published

on

Democratic State Senator Dallas Harris speaking at a Las Vegas event in 2023. (Photo Credit: Office of State Senator Dallas Harris)

LAS VEGAS, Nev. – Democratic State Senator Dallas Harris, a prominent figure in Nevada’s progressive political landscape, who serves as the Chief Majority Whip in the Senate, recently granted The Blade an exclusive interview delving into her experiences as a mother, wife, lawyer, and legislator. 

On December 4, 2018, the Clark County Commission appointed Harris to represent the 11th District, replacing Sen. Aaron Ford (D) who assumed the role of Attorney General. In the legislature, Dallas focuses on criminal justice reform, LGBTQ issues, and advocating for underserved communities. 

A steadfast dedication to public service has marked Dallas’s trajectory. From 2015 to 2017, she served as a Policy Extern at Public Knowledge, a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C., advocating for expanded broadband access and consumer protections. Dallas then returned to her roots in Nevada, where she served as an Administrative Attorney at the Public Utilities Commission, gaining firsthand experience in state government and utility regulation.

Since August 2019, Dallas has served as a Consumer Rights Attorney in the Adult Guardianship Project at the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, where she continues to champion the rights of vulnerable populations. 

Outside of her legislative duties, Dallas is Of Counsel at Davison Van Cleve, a law firm specializing in energy law. 

Dallas lives with her wife of five years, Summer Thomas-Harris, and their two children ages 12 and 2. 

A Love for Las Vegas

Harris spent her formative years in the bustling heart of Sin City, where her journey toward public service and advocacy began.

“I was born in the eighties, and I’ve seen the city grow quite a bit since then,” Harris told The Blade. “I like seeing the growth.” 

Harris proudly described Las Vegas as a “gem” that people have been “stumbling upon.”

“I like that there are so many folks realizing how nice it is here. The weather is great and, until recently, the cost-of-living was pretty low.”

“Another thing I love that has changed is that we now have home teams that are actually doing very well,” said Harris, who enjoys frequenting Las Vegas Aces games with her wife and friends. 

Harris expressed her relief that her cherished city doesn’t suffer from the overcrowding and congestion plaguing other urban hubs. However, with Biden’s recent announcement of a $3 billion grant for constructing a high-speed rail, promising to slash the commute time from Los Angeles to Las Vegas to a mere two and a half hours of comfortable, air-conditioned travel with Wi-Fi access, the once-intimate atmosphere of Vegas is bound to experience a significant influx of residents in the near future.

But Harris said she is not worried. 

“People from Southern California have always wanted to come to Las Vegas,” Harris said. “We have always been a draw for people trying to get away from the busy life of Southern California and find some adult fun in Las Vegas. The rail is going to make it a lot easier for that to continue to happen, but the relationship between Southern California and Las Vegas has been there for a very long time.”

Queerness

The senator reflected on her upbringing and the role models who paved the way for his authenticity.

“I could never really hide my queerness,” Harris said, highlighting her lifelong journey towards self-acceptance. “It’s never been an option for me ever since I was very, very young.”

Acknowledging the progressive environment of her upbringing in Nevada, Senator Harris credited political predecessors like Senator David Parks for fostering an inclusive atmosphere: “My childhood was in the top 90% of what it could’ve been in America in terms of openness about being queer,” she said. “I realize that it took the intentionality of folks like Senator David Parks to create this environment for a kid like me to grow up in”

Senator Parks was the first openly LGBTQ Nevada lawmaker in the legislature.

However, Senator Harris also acknowledged the challenges she faced, particularly from family members with religious views. “Some family members had religious views and sort of an underlying uncomfortableness about all of this,” she revealed. “It was underneath the surface. It was definitely there…But I just kept going.”

Despite these challenges, Senator Harris emphasized the importance of perseverance and the support of loved ones. Laughing, she said, “Sometimes I think my mom likes my wife better than she likes me.”

Work/Life Balance

Courtesy of Dallas Harris

“The work-life balance is tough,” admitted Senator Harris. “I think it’s hard on anyone who does something like this.” She highlighted the demanding nature of her job, where she is essentially away from home for months at a time due to legislative sessions. 

Adding to the complexity, Senator Harris and her wife both have full-time jobs, further complicating their efforts to balance work and family responsibilities. “It can be a struggle to give yourself enough to all of those different identities,” said Harris. “It’s not a walk in the park.”

To navigate the chaos, Senator Harris and her wife rely heavily on meticulous scheduling. 

“We use lots of scheduling. We have a meal plan. We sit down and plan out our entire week every Sunday,” she explained. This proactive approach ensures they stay organized and know who is responsible for childcare, school pickups, and other daily tasks.

Despite the challenges, Senator Harris emphasized the importance of prioritizing her marriage amidst the chaos. “We have been working to carve more space out for us,” she said. “We try to have time with other adults and have fun but also find time for us to connect.”

Reflecting on her role as a mother, Senator Harris highlighted the insights she gained into the realities faced by many women in the workforce. 

“The thing about being a mother that has affected my view is not just the fact of having a child but the fact of managing a family,” she shared. “Because that is what we so often are in the US. We are the managers of a family. I think I better understand now what it’s like for women to be in politics and for women to be in power.”

Tennant Landlord Laws

Harris, whose personal experiences deeply influence her legislative approach, shared her perspective on tenant-landlord laws. 

Growing up with a single mother and moving frequently, Harris gained firsthand knowledge of the challenges faced by tenants, particularly in dealing with security deposits and maintenance issues.

Reflecting on her upbringing, Senator Harris emphasized the impact of living in apartments with 12-month leases where rent increases often necessitated frequent moves. “I’ve lived in a lot of apartments,” she stated, highlighting the frustration of tenants who diligently clean their units only to face disputes over security deposit deductions. “You clean the apartment from top to bottom, but the landlord still claims you owe them something from the security deposit,” Harris recalled. “I know that fight.”

Senator Harris’s commitment to addressing these issues was evident in a bill she introduced Senate Bill 381, a measure aimed at protecting tenants from being charged for repairs and maintenance tasks that are the responsibility of landlords. The bill, sponsored by Senators D. Harris, Donate, Spearman, Flores, Daly, Krasner, Lange, Neal, Ohrenschall, Scheible, and Stone, received approval from both the Senate and Assembly.

Existing law in Nevada mandates landlords to maintain dwelling units in habitable conditions throughout a tenant’s stay. SB 381 reinforces this requirement by prohibiting landlords from imposing fees or charges on tenants for repairs, maintenance tasks, or other work that the landlord is obligated to perform to maintain the habitability of the unit.

Courtesy of Nevada state Sen. Dallas Harris

Education

Growing up, Harris found her passion not just in the bright lights but also in sports and education. She actively participated in various youth sports, with a particular fondness for tennis, basketball, and Taekwondo. Due to her frequent moves, Harris navigated through several schools across Clark County, including Parsons Elementary, Swainston Middle School, Lied Middle School, Las Vegas Academy (where she majored in Theatre), and Green Valley High School. 

After graduating from Green Valley High School, Dallas embarked on her higher education journey at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). In 2008, she obtained a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology, followed by another Bachelor of Arts in Computer Science in 2009. Eager to delve deeper into policy and public service, Dallas ventured to Southern California to pursue a Master’s degree in Public Policy at Claremont Graduate University. Her studies focused on economics, policy analysis, and statistics, providing her with a robust understanding of the intricacies of policymaking.

With a thirst for knowledge and a drive to effect change, Dallas then set her sights on law school, making her way to the nation’s capital. She enrolled at the George Washington University Law School, where she honed her legal acumen and gained invaluable insights into the intersection of law and policy. In 2005, Dallas emerged from law school equipped with a new perspective and a determination to make a difference.

Harris’ diverse educational experiences in the Clark County School District laid the foundation for her commitment to improving education in Nevada. Through Senat Bill 543, Harris was able to revise what she called an “archaic” school funding formula to allow for a substantial increase in school funding throughout Nevada. 

Gun Reform

In a move aimed at tightening firearm regulations and addressing hate-motivated crimes, Harris introduced Senate Bill No. 171. The bill, sponsored by Senators D. Harris, Spearman, Donate, Flores, Ohrenschall, and Scheible, sought to prohibit the purchase, possession, or ownership of firearms by individuals convicted of violent hate crimes, as well as to impose a ten year cooling off period for those who had committed any nonviolent crimes. 

Under existing laws, crimes committed with motives such as race, color, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity are punishable as gross misdemeanors. Additionally, individuals convicted of certain crimes are already prohibited from firearm ownership.

Harris told the Blade that she was disappointed that the bill was ultimately vetoed, as it represents what The Senator sees as a glaring misstep in the handling of gun distribution in her state. With school and mass shootings ever increasing throughout the US, Harris plans to continue to push for gun law reform.

HIV Modernization

In a proactive step towards strengthening public health initiatives, Senator Harris played a pivotal role in fortifying Senate Bill 275, a comprehensive legislative initiative tackling communicable diseases. The bill , which garnered bipartisan backing, introduces crucial provisions aimed at elevating disease prevention and control strategies statewide. Notably, the bill seeks to transform the approach towards HIV, recognizing it as a medical diagnosis rather than a criminal offense—a significant shift towards destigmatizing and addressing the condition effectively.

One of the notable aspects of SB 275 is the authorization for the appointment of quarantine officers when necessary to enforce quarantine measures. This provision aims to strengthen the enforcement of quarantine protocols, particularly during public health emergencies.

Additionally, the bill empowers health authorities to adopt reasonable fees for issuing or renewing health permits or licenses required by state law or local ordinances. These fees are designated to cover the costs associated with issuing permits and conducting related investigations, without relying on general revenue.

Moreover, the legislation emphasizes the importance of public health measures over criminalization in addressing the spread of communicable diseases. It underscores the need for a balanced approach that prioritizes public health interventions.

Additionally, it allows for testing and disclosure of information related to exposure to communicable diseases under specific circumstances while emphasizing confidentiality and the protection of personal information.

Courtesy of Dallas Harris

Looking Forward

Senator Dallas Harris, known for her advocacy for community well-being and economic growth, recently shared her vision for the future of Las Vegas. In her aspiration for an ideal Las Vegas, she emphasized the importance of creating a more accessible and pedestrian-friendly city.

“My ideal Las Vegas of the future would have more bike lanes and more walkable areas and more centralized zones,” Harris said. “Everything would be a little bit closer together…. Quality of life would go up in that way. “

Her vision aligns with efforts to enhance the livability of the city, making it easier for residents and visitors to move around and access amenities without relying heavily on cars. By prioritizing walkability and bike-friendly infrastructure, Harris’ vision aims to improve public health, reduce traffic congestion, and promote a sense of community connectivity.

Moreover, Senator Harris highlighted the importance of economic diversification in ensuring the city’s resilience and prosperity. “I would like to see more diversification in our economy,” she said. “I would love to see our economy get even stronger by broadening out and inviting in all of the different industries.”

By fostering a more diverse economy, Las Vegas could potentially reduce its reliance on a single industry, such as tourism and hospitality, and create more opportunities for growth and innovation across various sectors. This approach not only strengthens the city’s economic foundation but also enhances its resilience to external shocks and changes in the global market.

As Senator Dallas Harris continues to advocate for the interests and well-being of Las Vegas residents, her vision for a more livable and diverse city promises to shape the future trajectory of one of the nation’s most dynamic urban centers.

Finally, Harris shared a message for future young leaders: “There’s nothing to it but to do it,” Harris told The Blade. “If you want to run, nobody can tell you no.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Biden campaign calls out Trump for meeting with Viktor Orbán

“Orbán opposes democracy, LGBTQ rights, cracked down on judiciary, press in his and rigged his political system to keep himself in power”

Published

on

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán visits Donald Trump at the White House in May 2019 (Screen capture: YouTube/Guardian News)

WILMINGTON, Del. — The Biden-Harris reelection campaign issued a statement on Monday criticizing former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, for hosting anti-LGBTQ+ Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán at Mar-a-Lago over the weekend.

“To remind everyone,” the statement reads in part, “Viktor Orbán opposes democracy and LGBTQ rights, has cracked down on the judiciary and press in his country, and rigged his political system to keep himself in power.”

The campaign noted Trump was effusive in his praise for Orbán, about whom he said “there’s nobody that’s better, smarter, or a better leader,” echoing comments about the Hungarian leader that he made at a rally in January.

The statement also drew attention to reports that Trump, during their meeting, promised “that he would not give a “penny” to Ukraine in their fight against Russian thug Vladimir Putin – giving Putin the greatest gift he could hope for.”

President Joe Biden also took aim at his 2024 rival over the weekend. “You know who he’s meeting with today down at Mar-a-Lago?” Biden told supporters at a campaign event in Pennsylvania. “Orbán of Hungary, who stated flatly he doesn’t think democracy works, he’s looking for dictatorship.”

related

When Trump held a meeting with Orbán at the White House in May 2019, The New York Times noted that during their presidencies, George W. Bush had “dodged” and Barack Obama had “refused” to invite the far-right prime minister to the Oval Office.

Since he took office in 2010, Orbán’s policies concerning LGBTQ+ rights have been informed by his belief that they are “not compatible with Christian values.”

In 2020, he ended Hungary’s legal recognition of transgender people. The following year, his party proposed legislation to censor “pro-LGBT+ content” in movies, books, and public advertisements – which earned comparisons to Russia’s infamous law against so-called “homosexual propaganda.” And in 2023, Hungary’s parliament passed legislation that allows citizens to anonymously report same-sex couples who are raising children.

Continue Reading

Popular