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
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.”
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.
California
LGBTQ+ leaders from across Los Angeles gather to endorse Measure G
The ballot initiative would push toward more accountability and transparency from Los Angeles County officials
On Wednesday, leaders from the Los Angeles LGBTQ+ community gathered at West Hollywood Park in support of Measure G, a ballot initiative that would hold county officials and all departments accountable for corruption, fraud and closed-door deals.
“As Mayor of West Hollywood, I’m proud to support Measure G because it’s a vital step toward making LA County’s government more transparent, accountable, and responsive to the needs of all its residents,” said West Hollywood mayor John Erickson. “This reform is crucial for strengthening the voice of West Hollywood and every part of LA County. I urge everyone to vote yes on Measure G and help build a county government that truly works for all of our people.”
Community leaders say this ballot initiative is crucial reform on the November ballot. This initiative aims to increase representation and accountability in the LA County government.
Other than adding more seats to the Board of Supervisors, Measure G would also create an independent ethics commission, create an elected County Executive brand and open the County budget hearings to the public for more financial transparency.
This measure is not only supported by local LGBTQ+ leaders, but also from leaders across many other communities and industries like nurses and small businesses.
The ethics commission would work to prevent former politicians from lobbying within their first two years after leaving office, authorize the suspension of County politicians who are criminally charged with a felony.
The measure would create an elected County Executive position, where they would be directly responsible for the accountability of the public by putting an end to the current system where an elected bureaucrat controls LA County’s full $45 billion dollar budget.
Among other things, the measure would also require County departments to hold public budget hearings and require a minimum of five days’ notice to the public of County’s new legislation. This would prevent politicians from making secret closed-door deals.
The press conference was led by Drag Laureate, Pickle the Drag Queen and included other prominent LGBTQ+ voices like Trans Latin@ Coalition President and CEO Bamby Salcedo, Equality California Executive Director Tony Hoang and Los Angeles LGBTQ+ Commission Vice-Chair Sydney Rogers.
“For too long, our community has struggled to access essential services like housing, healthcare, and support programs due to inequities in the allocation of county resources. Measure G ensures that public funds are distributed fairly and that the needs of marginalized communities, including trans and gender nonconforming people, are prioritized, said Bamby Salcedo, President and CEO of the Trans Latin@ Coalition.
Politics
Anti-LGBTQ ads dog Democrats in key races as polls tighten
Victory Fund’s Sean Meloy speaks with the Blade about recent attacks
Key congressional races and the contest for the White House have become even tighter according to polling data released this week, as Republican campaigns, including former President Donald Trump’s team, targeted their opponents with $65 million in anti-LGBTQ and especially anti-trans attack ads.
With just 20 days until Nov. 5, Sean Meloy, vice president of political programs at the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, spoke with the Washington Blade about how the GOP’s “despicable” paid media strategy is impacting races up and down the ballot.
“This is gonna be the most anti-LGBTQ [election] year probably since 2004, when it comes to presidential rhetoric,” Meloy said.
Many of the LGBTQ candidates supported by his organization are now contending with attacks against their very identities. Among them is incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin of the key swing state of Wisconsin, an out lesbian who made history with her elections to the House and then to the Senate — but is now, Meloy said, in the “fight of her life.”
Her reelection is critical for Democrats to retain their narrow majority in the Senate so Vice President Kamala Harris can effectuate her agenda if she wins the White House.
For most of the campaign, Baldwin has maintained a narrow lead over Republican challenger Eric Hovde, but the real estate and banking tycoon polled ahead of her for the first time in an internal survey whose findings were released over the weekend by the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Cook Political Report considers their race a toss-up.
“Tammy has done an amazing job fighting for all people in Wisconsin, whether it’s farmers, whether it’s laborers, and, of course, LGBTQ constituents, too,” Meloy said. “I don’t know how you get a better senator than Tammy Baldwin, and I’m not just saying that because she’s probably going to be — knock on wood — our only [out] LGBTQ voice in the U.S. Senate.”
Baldwin is not shaken by anti-LGBTQ attacks
The senator has “been the target of hundreds of millions of dollars in attacks, including these anti-LGBT, these anti-trans attacks,” but also of ads “talking about, you know, where she sleeps and who she sleeps with,” Meloy said — messages suffused with the kind of overt homophobia that for decades was considered out-of-bounds in electoral politics.
“The race has absolutely tightened,” Meloy said, and in response Hovde’s campaign is “deploying everything and the kitchen sink, including these anti-trans ads, including the attacks against [Baldwin] and her girlfriend.”
“Even though she was being attacked about her identity, she’s not running from who she is,” he said, pointing to the “wonderful story” she shared on X to honor National Coming Out Day on Friday.
Can I tell you my coming out story? 🏳️🌈
— Tammy Baldwin (@tammybaldwin) October 11, 2024
I first came out in college. Back then, I knew I was interested in public service, but I feared that I would face a serious choice between pursuing the field of my dreams or living my authentic life openly.
Watching others in the LGBTQ+… pic.twitter.com/6L4nmkdOde
“I think that that is exactly what people want in their congresspeople, what they want in their senators, what they want in their government,” Meloy said. “They want their government to look like the people they represent and people who aren’t going to put their finger in the wind just because tens of millions of dollars in ads are attacking them about who they are.”
Baldwin has “done the work, she’s proven herself, she’s built those relationships and helped make sure our community was represented in an amazing fashion, and that’s why so many folks are excited to support her.”
The next 20 days will prove critical, Meloy said, as the “Victory Fund is working with her campaign to make sure that she gets the resources that she needs in order to combat” the lies and bad-faith attacks from Hovde. He noted a recent rapid response call was organized to help Baldwin through the “anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ ads.”
Victory has “already raised over $300,000,” Meloy said, adding, “I wouldn’t be surprised if [Baldwin is] the candidate that we’ve raised the most for this year,” nor if the fundraising total for her 2024 campaign “is a record number, because she absolutely is in the fight of her life.”
Straight allies in close Senate races respond to anti-LGBTQ attacks
Other Democrats in close Senate races, like U.S. Rep. Colin Allred of Texas, who is running to unseat anti-LGBTQ U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, and U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who is fending off a challenge from Republican businessman Bernie Moreno, have been targeted with anti-LGBTQ advertising, too.
The ads, riddled with falsehoods, focus primarily on the lawmakers’ support for allowing trans women and girls to compete on sports teams aligning with their gender identity.
In response, Allred cut a commercial in which he says, “I’m a dad. I’m also a Christian. My faith has taught me that all kids are god’s kids. So let me be clear. I don’t want boys playing girls sports, or any of this ridiculous stuff that Ted Cruz is saying.”
Brown’s team also responded to the attack with an ad in which the senator calls out misinformation and clarifies his stance — that the participation of trans athletes in competitive sports should be decided not by the government but by the individual leagues.
Meloy noted that Victory does not work with non-LGBTQ candidates, so he has limited insight into their campaign operations, but he stressed that while Allred and Brown were criticized by some LGBTQ advocates for appearing to signal a willingness to walk back their support for trans athletes, both have strong records of fighting to advance rights and protections for the community.
“I think that we know where their hearts are when it comes to believing in not discriminating,” Meloy said, and running against candidates like Cruz means having to dispel “a lot of misinformation, a lot of lies.”
In such circumstances, “sometimes, nuance is not going to be your friend,” he said, adding that the Republican “bigots” who are “using this rhetoric” to weaponize LGBTQ lives and identities in hopes of winning in November must be defeated.
“And then, we as a community need to make sure we hold their feet to the fire” to ensure the lawmakers reciprocate the support they received from their LGBTQ constituents — specifically, by passing the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive nondiscrimination rules across the board, and by codifying into law protections for reproductive rights.
Anti-trans strategy will fail, but the most effective messages concern sports
“I think in the end, it’s going to prove not to work,” Meloy added, referring to the GOP’s strategy of “demonizing our community for political points.”
Echoing remarks from other LGBTQ leaders like Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson, Meloy said the Republicans who leveraged anti-LGBTQ/anti-trans attacks in elections last year and in 2022 were mostly unsuccessful.
The strategy has “not been effective in winning swing districts, in winning battleground states, or even in conservative states,” he said. And “if these messages largely don’t work with independent voters,” Meloy asked, “who are they aimed at?”
Trump and other Republican candidates “are starting to bleed some of their base voters, and they need to continue to churn them out,” he said. So, with their transphobic rhetoric, the campaigns hope to get their right-wing supporters “foaming at the mouth again” while also reaching and engaging with the kind of disaffected men who are less likely to vote and who may admire anti-trans self-styled contrarians like Elon Musk.
The GOP’s strategy of using “trans lives to win votes” while “lying, all along the way, about those lives to do so” reeks of desperation, he said, while also inhibiting outreach to conservative or independent LGBTQ voters, to the extent that Republican campaigns ever sought to win over these voters in the first place.
At the same time, the New York Times reported last week that “Republican strategists said the focus on transgender women and girls in sports had been particularly effective with a key group of voters the party has hemorrhaged support from in recent years: college-educated suburban women.”
The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board agreed, publishing an opinion piece on Sunday that was titled, “Transgender Sports Is a 2024 Sleeper Issue.”
“An ad in Wisconsin says Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin ‘voted to let biological men into women’s sports,'” the authors wrote, while “Hovde gets spontaneous applause when he raises the issue at campaign events.”
Meloy conceded Republicans will likely find more success with the sports issue relative to their other anti-trans messaging, but stressed that it remains “just the best of a bunch of bad narratives that don’t fully get the job done when it comes to moving folks in a purple district to 50+ one.”
He pointed to last year’s elections in the Virginia Legislature, which saw anti-LGBTQ messaging from Republicans, including attacks focused on the participation of trans athletes in competitive sports.
Nevertheless, Danica Roem won her bid for the state Senate, becoming the first openly trans official elected to serve in both chambers of a state legislature. Four of her Democratic colleagues who were targeted for their support of the trans community also won their races. And together, their victories helped to secure a Democratic pro-equality majority in the Virginia House of Delegates and the Virginia State Senate.
Harris might discuss trans athletes issue with Joe Rogan
The vice president is reportedly considering a sit-down with Joe Rogan, whose podcast boasts 17.3 million subscribers and is especially popular among young men.
Rogan has repeatedly inveighed against trans athletes participating in competitive sports. “It’s f—ing up women’s sports in a huge way,” he said last summer. “If you care at all about biological women, you should be against that.”
“Kamala Harris has proven to be a very strong ally of LGBTQ people and trans people,” Meloy said, “and so I think that she’s not going to be afraid to tell the truth there” if she chooses to do the podcast.
The Democratic nominee would be “going on there to show people that she’s not all what the right wing is making her out to be” with their attacks on her record, background, and identity.
The Trump campaign and his Republican supporters are lying about Harris just as they’re lying about trans people, Meloy said. “Her showing up, her being visible and saying, ‘Hey, I’m here. I’m actually wanting to do these things. Trans people are just trying to live their lives.’ I think that conversation will go really far in hopefully adjusting people’s mindsets from ‘oh, these these ads are saying one thing,’ when in reality they’re just not truthful.”
He added, “I’m very hopeful these tactics and Trumpism are repudiated so we can get back to a system, right? We can close that chapter. As Kamala Harris says, we can close this chapter in our history and get back to healthy and robust debate that is not based around who you are, but what ideas you have for the people. And I think the work is happening to help make sure that that kind of win happens.”
The campaign led by Harris and her vice presidential pick, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, is emblematic of that positive, forward-looking message, Meloy said. “So many Americans across every single demographic” are resonating with their focus on “freedom and protecting democracy and turning the chapter on this very, very difficult past eight years.”
California
What you missed at the CD-14 debate between Ysabel Jurado and Kevin De León
LGBTQ+ candidate faces off against opponent Kevin De Leon on community forum on Wednesday
Los Angeles Council District 14 (CD-14) candidates Ysabel Jurado and Kevin de León sparred over their qualifications in what could have been their last in-person debate before the November election.
Wednesday’s CD-14 debate, a district home to approximately 265,000 people, 70% of them Latin American, offered the public a chance to hear from both candidates and their stand on issues such as homelessness, public safety and affordable housing, among other things.
CALÓ News was one of the media outlets that were present inside Dolores Mission Catholic Church in Boyle Heights, where the debate was held. Below are our reporter’s main takeaways.
People showed up and showed out. More than 300 people attended the debate, which was organized by Boyle Heights Beat and Proyecto Pastoral. More than 260 people gathered inside the church and the rest watched via a livestream projected on the church’s patio.
The debate was bilingual, with translation services available for all, honoring the many Spanish speakers that live in the district, as Brendan P. Busse, pastor of the church, said in the opening statement.
As part of the event guidelines, Busse also shared that no applause or booing was to be permitted, a rule that was broken within the first ten minutes of the forum. “Where you are tonight is a sacred place. People who are in need of shelter sleep here and have for the last 40 years,” he said when referring to the church transforming into a homeless shelter at night for over 30 adults. “Power and peace can live in the same place.”
That was the most peaceful and serene moment throughout the two-hour forum.
What followed was traded insults and competing visions from both candidates.
One of the first stabs occurred when De León accused Jurado of wanting to “abolish the police” and when Jurado reminded the public of De Leon’s “racist rhetoric,” referring to the 2022 scandal over the secretly recorded conversation with Gil Cedillo and Nury Martínez where they talked about indigenous Mexicans, Oaxacans, the Black and LGBTQ+ communities and councilman Mike Bonin’s adopted son.
“I made a mistake, and I took responsibility. I have been apologizing for two years,” De León said. “Just as in the traditions of the Jesuits, love, reconciliation [and] peace, one must choose if we are going to be clinging to the past or move forward. I choose to move forward.”
When Jurado was asked about her stance on police, she said she had never said she wanted to abolish the police. “Don’t put words in my mouth,” she told De León. “I have never said that,” she said. “We put so much money into public safety into the LAPD yet street business owners and residents in these communities do not feel safer. The safest cities invest in communities, in recreation and parks, in libraries [and] youth development.”
De León and Jurado also discussed their plan to work with the homeless population, specifically during the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Los Angeles. In Los Angeles County, an estimated 75,312 people were experiencing homelessness, as stated in the 2024 homeless count. For CD-14 the issue of homelessness takes a higher level as it is home to Skid Row, which has one of the largest homeless populations in the U.S.
“We should continue to house our unhoused,” De León said.
He followed this by saying that under his leadership, CD-14 has built the most interim housing than “in any other place in the entire city of L.A.” He made a reference to the Boyle Heights Tiny Home Village and 1904 Bailey, both housing projects in CD-14.
“We need safety when the Olympics come,” he added.
Jurado said De León’s leadership has fallen short in his years in office, specifically when it comes to the homeless population and said that housing like the tiny homes is not sufficient for people in the district to live comfortably.
“My opponent has governed this district, Skid Row, for over 20 years. Has homelessness in this district gotten better? We can all agree that it hasn’t,” she said. “County Supervisor Hilda Solís put up 200 units that are not just sheds; they have bathrooms, they have places and they have support services. Why hasn’t [CD-14] gotten something better than these tiny homes?”
One of De León’s repeating arguments in various of his answers was the fact that Jurado has never held public office before. “I’ve dedicated my whole life to public service, to the benefit of our people. My opponent, to this day, has not done one single thing,” De León said in the first few minutes of the debate.
In one of the questions about low-income elders in the district, he listed some of his achievements when helping this population, including bringing free vaccines for pets of seniors of this district and food distributions, which, as De León noted, help people with basic food needs, including beans, rice and chicken. “The same chicken sold in Whole Foods,” he said.
Jurado defended herself against the reality of never holding public office and said her work as a housing rights attorney and affordable housing activist have given her the tools and experience to lead the district in a different direction than the incumbent, De León. “We can’t keep doing the same thing and expect different results,” Jurado said. ‘We need long-term solutions,” she said.
Last month, The L.A. Times also reported on Jurado’s past political experience, including working on John Choi’s unsuccessful 2013 run for City Council, as well as her work as a scheduler in Mayor Eric Garcetti’s office and how she was appointed by Garcetti to the Human Relations Commission in 2021.
She later added that she was proud to already have the support of some of the L.A. City Council members, such as Eunisses Hernández, Nithya Raman and Hugo Soto-Martínez, which De León later referred to as the “socialist council members.”
After the debate, CALÓ News talked to both candidates and asked how they thought the debate went.
“It was a spirited debate, no question about it,” De León said. “Sometimes elections can take a real ugly twist that is very similar to Trump-ian characteristics. Like Donald Trump just says whatever he wants to say, no matter how outlandish [or] inaccurate it is.”
When asked the same question, Jurado said, “ I think my opponent said a bunch of lies and said that he has plans for this district when he’s had four years to execute all of them. It’s really disappointing that only now he suddenly has all these ideas and plans for this district.”
Both candidates told CALÓ News they will continue working until election day and making sure CD-14 residents show up to vote.
“But I think past the debate[s], it’s just [about] keeping your nose to [the] grindstone, working hard, and taking nothing for granted, knocking on those doors and talking directly to voters,” De León said.
Jurado said she still has a couple other events that she and her team are hosting before election day. “I’m out here talking to voters. We want to make sure that people know who I am and that they have other options. People are disappointed. We’re going to keep folks engaged and make sure that [they] turn out to the polls,” she said.
Jorge Ramírez, 63, from Lincoln Heights, said he has been supporting De León since his time in the State Senate and said he will continue to vote for him because he doesn’t know much about his opponent. “He is the type of person we need. He’s done a lot for immigrants,” he said. “The other person, we don’t know much about her and she’s not very well known. She doesn’t have much experience in this field.”
Alejandra Sánchez, whose daughter goes to school in Boyle Heights and lives in El Sereno, said she believes CD-14 has been in desperate need of new leadership and worries that many people will vote for De Leon just because he is who they have known for so long. “It’s very powerful to see a woman leader step in… It’s been an incredible year to see a woman president elected in Mexico, a woman running for president in the U.S. and a woman also running for leadership here in our community,’ she said. “That’s part of the problem… we are afraid to think about something new, about the new leadership of someone doing things differently.”
General election day will take place on Tuesday, November 5, 2024. Early voting began on October 7. You can register to vote or check your registration status online on the California Online Voter Registration page.
Politics
Harris talks marriage equality, LGBTQ rights with Howard Stern
Warns Trump could fill two more seats on Supreme Court if he wins
During an interview on “The Howard Stern Show” Tuesday, Vice President Kamala Harris discussed her early support for same-sex marriage and warned of the threats to LGBTQ rights that are likely to come if she loses to Donald Trump in November.
Conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was explicit, she said, in calling for the court to revisit precedent-setting decisions including those that established the nationwide constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
“I actually was proud to perform some of the first same-sex marriages as an elected official in 2004,” Harris said, a time when Americans opposed marriage equality by a margin of 60 to 31 percent, according to a Pew survey.
“A lot of people have evolved since then,” the vice president said, “but here’s how I think about it: We actually had laws that were treating people based on their sexual orientation differently.”
She continued, “So, if you’re a gay couple, you can’t get married. We were basically saying that you are a second-class citizen under the law, not entitled to the same rights as a [straight] couple.”
During his presidency, Trump appointed three conservative justices to the Supreme Court who, in short order, voted to overturn the abortion protections that were in place since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.
“The court that Donald Trump created,” Harris said, is “now talking about what else could be at risk — and understand, if Donald Trump were to get another term, most of the legal scholars think that there’s going to be maybe even two more seats” that he could fill.
“That means, think about it, not for the next four years [but] for the next 40 years, for the next four generations of your family,” Americans would live under the rule of a conservative supermajority “that is about restricting your rights versus expanding your rights,” she said.
News
Trump, GOP candidates spend $65 million on anti-trans ads
The strategy was unsuccessful for the GOP in key 2022, 2023 races
With just four weeks until Election Day, Donald Trump and Republican candidates in key down-ballot races have spent more than $65 million on anti-trans television ads since the start of August, The New York Times reported on Tuesday.
The move signals that Republicans believe attacking the vice president and other Democratic candidates over their support for trans rights will be an effective strategy along with exploiting their opponents’ perceived weaknesses on issues of immigration and inflation.
However, as Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson told the Times, conservatives had tried using the transgender community as a cudgel to attack Democrats during the 2022 midterms and in the off-year elections in 2023. In most cases, they were unsuccessful.
The GOP’s decision to, nevertheless, revive anti-trans messaging in this election cycle “shows that Republicans are desperate right now,” she said. “Instead of articulating how they’re going to make the economy better or our schools safer, they’re focused on sowing fear and chaos.”
The Times said most Republican ads focus on issues where they believe their opponents are out of step with the views held by most Americans — for example, on access to taxpayer funded transition-related healthcare interventions for minors and incarcerated people.
At the same time, there is hardly a clear distinction between ads focusing on divisive policy disagreements and those designed to foment and exploit rank anti-trans bigotry.
For example, the Trump campaign’s most-aired ad about Harris in recent weeks targets her support for providing gender affirming care to inmates (per an interview in 2019, when she was attorney general of California, and a questionnaire from the ACLU that she completed in 2020 when running for president).
The ad “plays on anti-trans prejudices, inviting viewers to recoil from images of Ms. Harris alongside those of people who plainly do not conform to traditional gender norms, to try to portray Ms. Harris herself as out of the ordinary,” the Times wrote in an article last month analyzing the 30-second spot, which had run on television stations in Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and Wisconsin.
Community Services - PSA
LGBTQ+ voter education town hall held tonight in Los Angeles
Unique Women’s Coalition, Equality California and FLUX host discussion on upcoming election.
The Unique Women’s Coalition, Equality California and FLUX, a national division of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, will host their second annual voter education town hall today at the Connie Norman Transgender Empowerment Center in Los Angeles from 7PM to 9PM tonight.
The organizations will present and discuss ballot propositions and measures that will appear on the November ballot and that affect the LGBTQ+ community in this part of the town hall series titled ‘The Issues.’
“The trans and nonbinary community is taking its seat at the table, and we are taking the time and space to be informed and prepare the voter base,” said Queen Victoria Ortega, international president of FLUX.
The town hall will feature conversations through a Q&A followed by a reception for program participants, organizational partners and LGBTQ+ city and county officials.
There will later be a third town hall before the election and The Connie Norman Transgender Empowerment Center will also become a voting location for anyone who feels like they need a safe space to vote, regardless of what voting district they are a part of.
“Our community is really asking for a place to talk about what all of this actually means because although we live in a blue sphere, housing and other forms of discrimination are still a very real threat,” said Scottie Jeanette Madden, director of advocacy at The Connie Norman Transgender Empowerment Center.
News
What does Prop 3 mean for same-sex marriage in California?
Proposition 3 would add a constitutional amendment that states all people have a right to marry regardless of sex or race.
In practice, Prop 3 would not change who can marry, it would only change the language of the California Constitution that still only acknowledges marriage between a man and a woman.
Approving the change of language would cement the legacy of progress that has allowed same-sex and interracial couples to marry.
In the Hollingsworth v. Perry Supreme Court case from 2010, United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional after a two-week trial. He then issued an order prohibiting the state and local officials named in the lawsuit, from enforcing the proposition – referred to as an injunction.
Following that move, the proponents of Prop 8 challenged the decision by filing an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court, standing by the notion of its unconstitutionality, though they stated a different reason for their position on the issue. The proponents of Prop 8 then filed a petition to review the Ninth Circuit and the district court’s rulings.
In 2013, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that the proponents of Prop 8 ‘lacked standing to appeal to the district court’s ruling that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.’
Instead of deciding whether Prop 8 was constitutional or not, the U.S Supreme Court decided only that the appeal from the district court’s ruling was ‘improper,’ and invalidated the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.
Judge Walker’s district court ruling that states Prop 8 is unconstitutional and the injunction he set, are the only rulings that remain intact from that ordeal. On June 28 2013, same-sex couples were able to resume the right to marry.
It wasn’t until 2015, that the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in all 50 states.
Proposition 3 would add a constitutional amendment that states all people have a right to marry regardless of sex or race.
If rejected, there would be no change to the ability for new couples to marry or reversal in the legitimacy of current marriages, but it would put same-sex marriage in possible danger for being challanged by the Supreme Court in future cases similar to Hollingsworth v. Perry.
Proposition 3 enshrines same-sex marriage in the Constitution to match what the federal courts have said about who can marry, meaning that same-sex and interracial couples are federally protected and Prop 3 would simply back that up in California.
If approved, there would be no change in revenues or costs to state and local governments.
Prop 3 would replace the definitions of marriage set forth by the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which states that defines marriage as ‘between one man and one woman, or husband and wife, and spouse as only a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.’
DOMA further goes on to say that ‘no state, territory or possession of the United States or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any marriage between persons of the same sex under the laws of any other such jurisdiction or to any right or claim arising from such relationship.’
In September, The Public Policy Institute of California found in a poll of 1,605 adults, that 68% of likely voters would vote yes on Prop 3. The poll found that a strong majority of Democrats and independents support the proposition.
The poll also found that majorities across demographic groups in California support the proposition and that the support increases with higher educational attainment and income, while support decreases among those age 45 and older and remains stronger in those aged 18 to 44.
Supporters of the proposition include Sierra Pacific Synod of The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Dolores Huerta Foundation and Equality California.
Politics
Harris campaign’s LGBTQ+ engagement director on winning in November
Sam Alleman shares details of his personal and professional journey
Sam Alleman, national LGBTQ+ engagement director for the Harris-Walz 2024 campaign, talked with the Washington Blade last week for an exclusive interview about his work building and strengthening coalitions within the community in hopes of winning in November.
On the Democratic side, organizing LGBTQ voters for a presidential campaign goes back at least a decade, he said, to 2012 when Jamie Citron — currently the deputy assistant to the president and principal deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement — helped to lead these efforts on behalf of then-President Barack Obama’s reelection bid.
On Hillary Clinton’s campaign, Alleman said, it was Dominic Lowell working in close coordination with Sean Meloy, director of LGBT engagement for the Democratic National Committee, who now serves as vice president of political programs at the LGBTQ Victory Fund and Institute.
“Something that we’re very proud of as the little crew of folks who all are friends,” Alleman said, “is really building off each other’s work to continue scaling this and building out infrastructure to organize within the community.”
He added that in 2020, Reggie Greer, who led LGBTQ engagement for the Biden-Harris campaign and is now the State Department’s senior adviser to the U.S. Special Envoy to Advance the Human Rights of LGBTQI+ Persons, “was dealt the very difficult hand of a global pandemic.”
He explained, despite the challenges, Greer and others managed to build “a wonderful program that’s very much virtual, put forward from folks that did this work and were online,” which has shaped efforts through to this day as the Harris-Walz campaign seeks to “really get people back in person” as they focus their push in, especially, the seven battleground states.
The goal, Alleman said, is “not losing the virtual component, but complementing it” to “get people back on board, back to the event, back to the rally, back to the business that is a presidential campaign in 2024.”
“That’s a question and a piece of this work that is not necessarily unique to the LGBTQ+ portfolio,” he said. “But then it’s been something that we’ve worked through, and I think getting that from 2020 and rebuilding and fleshing that out has been a top priority.”
“We have wonderful working relationships with Liam Kahn over at the DNC right now,” Alleman said, referring to the committee’s director of LGBTQ+ coalitions, “and then, of course, my counterpart in finance, James Conlon, we work hand in glove as a team to execute on all of this work,” together with “my deputy, oh my gosh, he just started, I’m so excited, Cesar Toledo — who is like an absolute force and really runs the day to day of the organizing program.”
For his part, Alleman’s career has taken him from organizing work as a college student for then-Texas State Sen. Wendy Davis to campaign work for Clinton to the center of the reproductive rights movement at Planned Parenthood to the White House and, now, the Harris-Walz 2024 race.
“I started on the campaign in April of 2024,” he said, working on behalf of what was then the Biden-Harris ticket, while before that, “I was at the DNC for two and a half years. So I started over there as the LGBTQ coalitions director in October of 2021 and helped to manage all their LGBTQ+ programming through the midterm elections.”
Alleman continued, “I was also the regional coalitions director for the Midwest. We affectionately called it the “snow belt,” but [it was] our Great Lakes and Northeast states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire in 2022 as well, working in that pod in tandem with all of our state programming.”
When transitioning into the new role, Alleman said “it was keenly important” for him to facilitate the continued investment in building “infrastructure for our community at the DNC” which is something the organization has shown is a priority focus.
“At the DNC, the work is very infrastructure focused,” he said, through the vehicle of coordinating with “our state parties” and “making sure that they have the resources to do this work to mobilize voters.”
Alleman added that a few dozen state Democratic parties have LGBTQ caucuses, so at the DNC he was working to “make sure that they were getting organized” in coordination “of course, with the partners, too.”
Asked to compare his experiences working in similar roles for the committee and then the presidential campaign, Alleman said “The party has a bigger responsibility, I should say, to think about the totality of the ticket” which means considering questions like “how are we getting resources to [down-ballot] races, like city council members and state reps and state senators?”
He noted “there are a lot of LGBTQ state reps and state senators with big names [who are doing] amazing work in this moment.”
By contrast, “when we’re here on the presidential [ticket] it’s a lot of the same strategies and tactics, but really homed in on our battleground states, really homed in on [the question of] ‘how are we building out capacity to talk to those voters where we know our pathway to victory is?'”
In between the Clinton campaign and the DNC was a long stint at Planned Parenthood, Alleman said, an opportunity that found him via a friend who reached out after Trump’s victory in 2016.
Packed into the Javits Center, where the Clinton team had organized what they — and most Americans — expected to be a victory party, Alleman said “everything changed from that point on” as “things that had felt so certain and so set in terms of what I was planning on doing, just sort of all changed.”
“I feel like it was that way for so many of us, both in terms of work, our personal lives, everything that happened in 2016,” he said. “And so I got a call from a friend — a good friend of mine who’s still one of my best friends, actually, I just officiated her wedding.”
The personal is political
“Everything really just sort of clicked there,” Alleman said, adding, “I worked at Planned Parenthood for five or six years, doing various jobs,” starting with the Metropolitan Washington affiliate where he worked to “plan the logistics and busses for the Women’s March” in 2017 to protest Donald Trump’s election.
Reproductive rights, he said, is “a big part of my story and why I’m in the work.”
Alleman is a Texas native. In college, he worked for the campaign of then-state senator Wendy Davis, who famously held a 13-hour-long filibuster in 2013 to block legislation that would have imposed harsher abortion restrictions.
“I’m originally from Plano,” he said. “By virtue of being from Texas, these things that feel like very big issues now have sort of always been litigated, LGBTQ+ rights, reproductive rights, in our state based off just conservative extremists,” adding, “we would call them MAGA Republicans now.”
While he was always supportive of reproductive rights, Alleman said that as a young man who was grappling with his sexuality and on his own coming out journey, he did not fully understand “the totality” of those freedoms and how they intersect with other core American values.
“A very important part of my story, and a big part of why I do this work, is my sister,” Alleman said. Just seven months after getting health insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act, he said his sister was “diagnosed with breast cancer at a Planned Parenthood health center via a breast exam.”
While she “is now cancer free and in remission and doing very well,” Alleman said, “I don’t know what my family would have done if we had not been able to access health insurance through the Affordable Care Act.”
“It would have bankrupted my family,” he said, “and I would have dropped out of college. I wouldn’t be sitting here today, right? Like, nothing that happened would have happened, would have been possible. She very well may not be alive, you know?”
Alleman continued, “And so, the importance of healthcare and access to affordable healthcare, and then the ability for us to have bodily autonomy and then control of our own decisions and destinies, has always just been something that has been critically important for me.”
“We talk about all the accomplishments that we’ve seen from the Biden-Harris administration,” he said, like “the Affordable Care Act and what that means, but my story is an example of the impact of that, [of] what this actually means for people to have access to health care and health insurance, what this actually means for people to be able to go to their Planned Parenthood health center and feel safe in accessing reproductive health care in its totality, from abortion to breast exams.”
He described falling “in love” with the work at Planned Parenthood as well as with the movement for reproductive freedom. “I moved up to the national office about six or seven months after starting at the affiliate on their political team,” he said, “and ended as their national political manager before moving over to the DNC.”
From there, Alleman said, “I worked at the DNC for two and a half years managing the LGBTQ coalition work” during which time “we were really proud of the Biden-Harris administration, but it always felt [like] it was so clear where we would probably be in terms of who we were running against, right, where we are today in 2024.”
So the focus remained, he said, on “what was at stake, not only in the work that we needed to get done politically to, you know, get infrastructure done, get the Inflation Reduction Act done, make sure that we help the Senate and House as best we could in the midterms, so that we can continue achieving things like the Respect for Marriage Act — but as well, to put us in as best a position as possible to take on what was the looming threat to our democracy, and what is the looming threat to our democracy, that is Donald Trump.”
Alleman added, “And we see now” from “Project 2025” what “things will look like should he win — though we have, I think, a pretty good plan to keep that from happening.”
Storytelling and organizing go hand-in-hand
“I consider myself first and foremost an organizer, and there’s nothing more powerful for an individual than knowing your story and being able to tell that and stand in its truth and what that means for you and your power,” Alleman said.
He sees this as an important part of not just his work and career but also a focus of the campaign.
“So storytelling is absolutely, to me, one of the most fundamental things we do as organizers — it’s helping people find their voice and how they want to use that to benefit their communities, to turn out voters, and really just participate in our democracy,” he said.
Storytelling is also an important element of communicating about our intersectional identities, Alleman said. “We talk about these communities sometimes in such different lanes, but in reality, we’re all creatures of narrative.”
He added, “We’re all sort of experiencing life in that more qualitative, narrative way. And those stories are where people not only are able to sort of synthesize all the things that they are, but also provide the actual emotion and the human aspect of these issues in life.”
Politics
Republican NC gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson likes transgender porn, CNN reports
State lieutenant governor is vehemently anti-LGBTQ
Far-right anti-LGBTQ North Carolina lieutenant governor and Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson enjoys transgender pornography, according to a report published by CNN on Thursday.
The controversial official has made deeply offensive and incendiary remarks about trans people, but privately on the message board of Nude Africa, an adult site, he said, “I like watching tranny on girl porn!”
Robinson denied the report, but CNN linked the anonymous account to Robinson via a slew of matching biographical details and a username and email address he has used in the past.
“This is not us. These are not our words. And this is not anything that is characteristic of me,” Robinson said. “I’m not going to get into the minutia of how somebody manufactured this, these salacious tabloid lies.”
The lieutenant governor, who is Black, also made racist comments on the forum. Responding to news of then-President Barack Obama’s dedication of the national monument to Martin Luther King, Jr., Robinson wrote, “Get that f*cking commie bastard off the National Mall!”
“I’m not in the KKK,” he added. “They don’t let blacks join. If I was in the KKK I would have called him Martin Lucifer Koon!”
Additionally, CNN reports, “Robinson also used homophobic slurs frequently, calling other users f*gs” and “in a largely positive forum discussion featuring a photo of two men kissing after one returned from a military deployment, Robinson wrote the sole negative comment.
‘That’s sum ole sick a** f*ggot bullsh*t!’ he wrote.”
Along with the Republican Party of North Carolina, Robinson’s uphill candidacy against Democratic state attorney general Josh Stein is supported by Donald Trump.
Politics
PREVIEW: Biden grants exclusive interview to the Blade, congratulates Sarah McBride
Delaware State Sen. Sarah McBride, who is favored to become the first transgender member of Congress after winning the Democratic primary this week, received a congratulatory call on Wednesday from a powerful friend and ally: President Joe Biden.
The president shared details about their conversation with the Washington Blade during an exclusive interview in the Oval Office on Thursday, which will be available to read online early next week.
“I called her and I said, ‘Sarah,’ I said, ‘Beau’s looking down from heaven, congratulating you,’” Biden said, referring to his late son, who had served as attorney general of Delaware before his death from cancer in 2015.
McBride had worked on Beau Biden’s campaign in 2006 and on his reelection campaign in 2010. Two years later, when she came out as transgender, the AG called to say, “I’m so proud of you. I love you, and you’re still a part of the Biden family.”
The president told the Blade that McBride welled with emotion — “she started to fill up” — as she responded that the “‘only reason I’m here is because of Beau. He had confidence in me.’”
When the two worked together, “[Beau] was getting the hell kicked out” of him because “he hired her,” Biden said, but “now she’s going to be the next congresswoman, the next congresswoman from Delaware.”
Later, when asked how he will remain involved in the struggle for LGBTQ rights after leaving office, the president again mentioned McBride. “Delaware used to be a pretty conservative state, and now we’re going to have — Sarah is going to be, I pray to God, a congresswoman.”
Reforming Los Angeles County Government for the 21st Century
Petition demands Kenyan government stop discriminating against queer asylum seekers
Out in the World: LGBTQ news from Europe, Australia, and Canada
Around the world, campaigns for marriage change hearts and minds
Putting off watching ‘Monsters?’ You’re missing out
LGBTQ+ leaders from across Los Angeles gather to endorse Measure G
Around the world, campaigns for marriage change hearts and minds
Queer Latinas belong everywhere – including politics
Putting off watching ‘Monsters?’ You’re missing out
Out in the World: LGBTQ news from Europe, Australia, and Canada
-
California5 days agoLGBTQ+ leaders from across Los Angeles gather to endorse Measure G
-
Commentary3 days agoAround the world, campaigns for marriage change hearts and minds
-
Opinions4 days agoQueer Latinas belong everywhere – including politics
-
Television3 days agoPutting off watching ‘Monsters?’ You’re missing out
-
World20 hours agoOut in the World: LGBTQ news from Europe, Australia, and Canada
-
Kenya20 hours agoPetition demands Kenyan government stop discriminating against queer asylum seekers
-
Opinions17 hours agoReforming Los Angeles County Government for the 21st Century