By Ethan Dewitt | CONCORD, N.H. – In early May, Democrats in the House defeated the “Honesty in Education Act.” The bill was the latest effort to require public school teachers to answer parents when they ask about changes to their child’s gender identity. 

But another bill is moving forward that supporters say would give parents more control over their children’s instruction in schools – and opponents say would intrude on classroom instruction.

House Bill 1312 would allow parents to opt their children out of any “instruction or program of” sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or gender expression. 

Currently, state law allows parents to withdraw their children from classes related to human sexual education. HB 1312 would expand that ability to apply to the additional topics. 

Under the existing process, parents must notify the school district in writing that they object to the class material. And the parents must propose alternative instruction that is agreed upon by the school district, and pay for it themselves if there is a cost.

HB 1312 would expand the withdrawal and require school district staff to notify parents at least two weeks in advance of any material that might fall into the category. 

Separately, the bill would prevent school districts from requiring that teachers withhold information from parents about their child’s well-being – including information about their sexuality. Individual teachers could still choose not to answer questions from parents about their child’s sexuality, but school districts could not make it a blanket policy under the bill.

The legislation, which passed the House 186-185, appears likely to clear the Republican-led Senate, too; the Senate Education Committee voted to recommend that it pass, in a 3-1, party-line vote. 

Supporters say the bill would give parents a greater say in how their children learn about sensitive topics. But opponents said the bill would empower discriminatory views against LGBTQ+ people, and that the notification process would be disruptive to teachers.

“The bill seems to be targeting, and I think stigmatizing, any instruction concerning LGBTQ+ people, and I think that this language really sends the message to LGBTQ+ students that their feelings and identities are something to be shunned, feared, potentially even censored, or not even acknowledged,” said Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire. 

To Sen. Tim Lang, a Sanbornton Republican, the bill would encourage parents to communicate with their children about the topics – knowing that they were coming up in the curriculum – which he said could foster better connections between parents and children.

“Parents should have these discussions with their own children and not have teachers do this. This bill is the prompt for parents to have those conversations.”

Lang said the notification requirements would not prevent school districts from teaching the topics, but would rather allow parents to choose whether to participate in them. And he argued that the bill is not intended to allow parents to withdraw their child from materials that relate to LGBTQ+ people or movements in history.

“It’s just informative to parents,” he said. “Nothing stops the school from doing those classes. The class is allowed. That just says that if you do it though, because this is a sensitive topic, you need to notify parents.”

A class about Harvey Milk, the openly gay San Francisco politician who was assassinated in 1978, would not fall under the definition of instruction of sexual orientation, Lang said, because Milk was a historical figure. But any instruction directed at students themselves that delved into their own sexual orientations or gender identity – such as that in a sex education class – would need to be disclosed, he said. 

But representatives of teachers unions said the bill as written does not make those distinctions clear. Teachers might interpret the law to mean that any class that discussed the history of LGBTQ+ rights would need to be noticed ahead of time, opponents said. And English teachers might feel compelled to disclose any book that featured LGBTQ+ characters, and to empower parents to prevent their children from reading those books.

“If you pass this bill that expands the areas that a parent is required notification of and can opt a child out of, where will it stop?” said Deb Howes, president of the American Federation of Teachers of New Hampshire. “… Can you study the pay gap between men and women in the same jobs in an economics class, which has to do with policies around gender discrimination?”

Lang disagreed with that characterization; books that happen to include transgender or non-heterosexual characters would not automatically invoke the disclosure requirement, he said. Only instruction that was specifically intended to teach students about sexual orientation or gender identity would need advanced notice, he said.

Brian Hawkins, director of government relations for the National Education Association of New Hampshire, argued that the topics the bill would add to the parental notification law were so broad that teachers would find the law difficult to follow. 

“We think that 1312 is another piece of legislation that would significantly limit educators’ ability to teach, and provides far too many instances of vague language and framework to determine when certain actions violate the statute,” Hawkins said. 

New Hampshire lawmakers first passed the law allowing parental opt-out from sex ed in 2017. In recent years, Republicans have pushed to allow more parental control over school library books, and have pressed for legislation to require teachers to answer any questions from parents about their child’s preferred pronouns or gender identity in school. 

The latest parental notification bill effort, Senate Bill 341, was “indefinitely postponed” earlier this month, on a voting day when House Democrats had a majority over Republicans in the near-evenly divided chamber. That motion means that the bill is dead and that it cannot return as an amendment to another bill this legislative session.

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

Ethan DeWitt is the New Hampshire Bulletin’s education reporter. Previously, he worked as the New Hampshire State House reporter for the Concord Monitor, covering the state, the Legislature, and the New Hampshire presidential primary. A Westmoreland native, Ethan started his career as the politics and health care reporter at the Keene Sentinel. Email: [email protected]

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

The preceding article was previously published by the New Hampshire Bulletin and is republished with permission.

The independent, nonprofit New Hampshire Bulletin is guided by these words from our state constitution: “Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive.” We will work tirelessly every day to make sure elected officials and state agencies are held to that standard.

We’re part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

By James Brooks | JUNEAU, Alaska – The Alaska House of Representatives voted 22-18 late Sunday to ban transgender girls from girls’ school sports teams by limiting access to girls whose original birth certificates identify them as girls.

The decision followed hours of filibustering by a coalition of opponents, but supporters mustered enough votes to defeat dozens of amendments offered by those opponents and advanced House Bill 183 to the state Senate, where the proposal is expected to die without becoming law.

Though the Senate has said it will not hear the bill and there are no known transgender athletes in Alaska school sports, it was nonetheless a top priority for most of the House’s Republicans, who said they were responding to their constituents.

Rep. Jamie Allard, R-Anchorage, said she believes transgender girls are boys, and that the House Republicans were standing in support of other Alaskans who feel the same.

“I want you to know Alaska stands with you. I stand with you. I know my majority members stand with them too. To the parents of the children of Alaska, know we will fight. We will fight for your children. We will fight for your girls in sports,” she said.

Opponents of the bill said that if the proposal ever were to become law, it would immediately draw legal challenges for being discriminatory.

“Trans girls are girls. Our gender identity is determined in our brains, it is coded, it is fixed,” said Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage, who opposed the bill. “99.5% of us have a gender identity in our brains that matches our physical bodies, half a percent does not.”

Rep. CJ McCormick, D-Bethel, has suffered from a spinal condition since he was young. Speaking on the House floor, he said he was bullied and teased in school for being different. 

“I am a Bethel kid. I grew up in rural Alaska. I grew up with a rare spinal condition. Kids used to beat me up, just made fun of my neck,” he said.

He became friends with some of those bullies because of a shared love of sports, and he vehemently opposed the bill because it puts barriers in sports for children, he said.

“All of this debate is — we’re talking about kids! We’re talking about kids. We are attacking children!” he said.

Rep. Alyse Galvin, I-Anchorage, is the mother of a transgender daughter, and said she finds it hard to believe that Alaskans place this issue as a top priority. She said she believes “outside agitators” and social media have spun people up on the issue, but that can be overcome.

“I think we look within. We tune out the outside voices of hate, and discord. And we focus on our inside voice of love, empathy, compassion, understanding all the things that we were taught. The only way we are going to change the direction of the harmful discourse is to leave it from our hearts,” she said.

The final vote saw all 20 Republicans in the House’s majority caucus vote in favor of the bill, as did Reps. David Eastman, R-Wasilla, and Dan Ortiz, I-Ketchikan.

All of the House’s Democrats voted against the bill, as did all of its independents, with the exception of Ortiz. Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak and a minority-caucus member, was the lone Republican to vote against it.

After the bill’s passage, Rep. Zack Fields, D-Anchorage, requested a re-vote, which may take place Tuesday. The bill is still expected to pass on that re-vote, though the vote total may change.

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

James Brooks is a longtime Alaska reporter, having previously worked at the Anchorage Daily News, Juneau Empire, Kodiak Mirror and Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. A graduate of Virginia Tech, he is married to Caitlyn Ellis, owns a house in Juneau and has a small sled dog named Barley. He can be contacted at [email protected].

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

The preceding article was previously published by the Alaska Beacon and is republished with permission.

The Alaska Beacon is an independent, nonpartisan news organization focused on connecting Alaskans to their state government. Our journalists fairly and fearlessly report on the people and interests that determine state policy.

We’re part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

By Tess Vrbin | LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – The Arkansas State Library Board on Friday voted down two motions to withhold state funding from public libraries that board member Jason Rapert put forth in his ongoing opposition to the presence of certain books on library shelves.

The former Republican state senator from Conway reintroduced a motion he proposed at February’s board meeting to suspend funding for libraries suing the state until the litigation is concluded. The proposal died for lack of a second in February. On Friday, the other six members of the board voted against the motion while Rapert was the only one to vote for it.

Rapert also moved to withhold funds for “any library that allows unrestricted access to books or materials that contain sexually explicit, obscene or pornographic materials to minors,” based on the results of a survey he requested in February. The motion failed with the same results.

State Library Director Jennifer Chilcoat circulated Rapert’s request to find out whether a list of books he considers inappropriate for minors are available on library shelves statewide, and Rapert said the survey revealed the presence of 352 “objectionable” books. He did not say how many of the state’s dozens of library systems responded or did not respond to the survey.

The board does not “have any way to determine which libraries might be knowingly making obscene materials available for children,” board Chairwoman Deborah Knox of Mountain Home said.

“I’m having a hard time believing that any of our public libraries are doing that, and I would hate to approve a motion inhibiting distribution of funds to those libraries when we have no way of knowing if those libraries even exist,” Knox said.

Rapert said the survey results prove otherwise.

“You can claim all this stuff, going around and around in circles, acting like you don’t know that there’s explicit material teaching kids how to give oral sex to each other,” he said, raising his voice. “I hope every community in the state watches this [meeting]. I am appalled that any adult would try to stop us from taking a stand against this junk on library shelves.”

Both of Rapert’s motions would have applied to distributions of funding at future board meetings, since they were introduced after the board voted to give public libraries their allotted share of state money for the final quarter of fiscal year 2024. Rapert was the only member to vote against the disbursement.

Shari Bales of Hot Springs, who was confirmed to the board by the state Senate along with Rapert in December, asked who is responsible for determining whether a book’s content is sexually explicit or pornographic. Rapert responded by amending his motion to specify “sexually explicit, obscene or pornographic materials… as described in Act 372.”

The 2023 law in question would alter Arkansas libraries’ processes for reconsidering material and create criminal liability for librarians who distribute content that some consider “obscene” or “harmful to minors.” The law mentions the word “obscene” several times but does not define it, and it does not include “sexually explicit” or “pornographic” in the text at all.

The law’s first section does include the phrase “furnishing a harmful item to a minor,” defining “item” as “a material or performance that depicts or describes nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse.”

A federal judge temporarily blocked two portions of Act 372, including the first section, in July before it went into effect. U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks wrote in his preliminary injunction order that the two sections could lead to arbitrary interpretation and “content-based restrictions” that violate the First Amendment. The case is scheduled for trial in October.

The Central Arkansas Library System (CALS), the Fayetteville Public Library and the Eureka Springs Carnegie Public Library are among the 19 plaintiffs challenging the law.

Rapert’s amended motion died for lack of a second before the original motion failed.

Over the last few years, hard-right conservatives in Arkansas have tried to tie library funding to whether certain books are available on shelves. In November 2022, a narrowly-approved ballot measure cut Craighead County libraries’ funding in half after protests over an LGBTQ+ book display and a transgender author’s visit to the library.

Republican state Sen. Dan Sullivan of Jonesboro, the seat of Craighead County, was the primary sponsor of Act 372 in the Legislature. In October, he said the state should withhold funding from the Arkansas Library Association (ArLA), a nonprofit trade association that does not receive state funding.

Many local Arkansas libraries are ArLA members, and the organization is among the plaintiffs challenging Act 372.

Board discussion

Bales said she thought Rapert’s motion about explicit content “sounds a lot like legislation” and was outside the board’s purview. She emphasized that her opposition to the motion did not mean she wanted her children to read “dirty books.”

“I think we should err on the side of staying in our lane and wearing the hats that have been assigned to us,” she said. “…It may be a really good idea, but sometimes really good ideas are not always really good policies.”

Bales also repeated her concerns from February about Rapert’s proposal to withhold funding for libraries suing the state. Rapert argued again that a state entity should not provide money to plaintiffs that could use it to pay their attorneys. Bales said the plaintiffs might be using private funds for this purpose, which would make withholding public funds “a moot point” and possibly “coercion.”

Rapert said it was an “exaggeration” that his proposal might be coercive to the entities that the board funds. He also said the state Legislature can dissolve state boards that do not “do their jobs.”

“We’re the ones that decide how the money is disbursed, and if you don’t understand that… maybe you need to revisit what you’re on the board for,” he said.

Rapert asked Chilcoat to place an item on the agenda for the board’s next meeting in August to “assess and handle” the presence of “pornographic” books in libraries. He did not name any of the books in question, which he did in February, but he mentioned a book with an incest scene that “shocked” him.

Board member Lupe Peña de Martinez of Mabelvale said she recently read six of the books Rapert opposes, including the one with the scene he mentioned. She said her 13-year-old child is not currently allowed to read the books but will someday be mature enough to read them.

Books that depict sexual abuse of children by adults, including incest, are intended as resources for children who have experienced this, Peña de Martinez said, and making these books unavailable to minors across the board “is exercising the privilege of a much more comfortable life.”

“I am repulsed by what’s in those books, but not because I’m upset with the authors,” she said. “I’m repulsed at what children are victim to… If we read the books cover to cover, it’s not about exposing children to lewd content. It’s about saying, ‘This is not right, and there are adults who love you and want to protect you.’”

Peña de Martinez’s comments received applause from the librarians in the audience.

Rapert acknowledged that these issues are real but said some books “are actually grooming children, and that is another problem.”

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

Tess Vrbin came to the Advocate from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, where she reported on low-income housing and tenants’ rights, and won awards for her coverage of 2021 flooding and tornado damage in rural Arkansas. She previously covered local government for The Commercial Dispatch in Mississippi and state government for the Columbia Daily Tribune in Missouri.

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

The preceding article was previously published by the Arkansas Advocate and is republished with permission.

The Arkansas Advocate is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization dedicated to tough, fair daily reporting and investigative journalism that holds public officials accountable and focuses on the relationship between the lives of Arkansans and public policy. This service is free to readers and other news outlets.

We’re part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

SUPPORT NEWS YOU TRUST – DONATE!

By Marta Aldrich | NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Tennessee teachers can move forward with their lawsuit challenging a 3-year-old state law restricting what they can teach about race, gender, and bias.

U.S. District Court Judge Aleta Trauger denied the state’s motion to dismiss the case.

The Nashville judge also sided with educators over questions of whether they have legal grounds to sue the state, plus whether the federal court is the appropriate jurisdiction to take up complaints about the 2021 state law.

And in a 50-page memorandum to explain her single-page order, Trauger was frequently critical of the statute, which restricts teachers from discussing 14 concepts that the Republican-controlled legislature deemed cynical or divisive. She also cited shortcomings of related rules, developed by the state education department, to outline the processes for filing and investigating complaints, appealing decisions, and levying punishment that could strip teachers of their licenses and school districts of state funding.

“The Act simply invites a vast array of potentially dissatisfied individuals to lodge complaints based on their understanding of those concepts and then calls on the Commissioner [of Education], as a sort of state philosopher, to think deeply about what equality, impartiality, and other abstract concepts really mean and enforce the Act accordingly,” Trauger wrote in her May 2 memorandum.

“I’m thrilled that the judge listened to our concerns as educators and seemed to understand that this law puts teachers in an impossible position,”– Kathryn Vaughn, Tipton County teacher

Meanwhile, educators are at the mercy of the personal biases of authorities, which is “exactly what the doctrine of unconstitutional vagueness is intended to guard against,” she said.

The so-called prohibited concepts law was among the first of its kind in the nation that passed amid a conservative backlash to the racial-justice movement and protests prompted by the 2020 murder of George Floyd by a white police officer in Minneapolis.

Among its prohibitions are classroom discussions about whether “an individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously.”

The law’s defenders note that it permits an “impartial discussion of controversial aspects of history,” or as Rep. John Ragan, the House sponsor, described it: “facts-based” instruction.

But teachers say they don’t know how to be impartial when teaching about the theories of racial superiority that led to slavery and Jim Crow laws. The resulting confusion has influenced the small but pivotal decisions they make every day about how to prepare for a lesson, what materials to use, and how to answer a student’s question, ultimately stifling classroom discussion, many critics of the law assert.

Last July, lawyers for five public school educators and the Tennessee Education Association, the state’s largest teacher organization, filed a lawsuit in federal court in Nashville.

The suit says the language of the law is unconstitutionally vague and that the state’s enforcement plan is subjective. The complaint also says the statute interferes with instruction on difficult but important topics included in state-approved academic standards, which dictate other decisions around curriculum and testing.

Trauger, who taught school for three years before entering law school, suggested that the ambiguity could lead to a lack of due process for educators under the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

“That does not mean that a law has to be wise or perfect or crystal clear, but it must mean something concrete and specific that a well-informed person can understand by reading its text,” she wrote in her memorandum.

Kathryn Vaughn, a Tipton County teacher who is among the plaintiffs, called the judge’s decision an important early step in the legal challenge.

“I’m thrilled that the judge listened to our concerns as educators and seemed to understand that this law puts teachers in an impossible position,” she told Chalkbeat on Thursday.

A spokesperson for the state attorney general’s office, which filed a motion for dismissal last September, declined to comment on the new development.

The judge set a June 17 scheduling meeting with attorneys in the case to discuss how to manage the litigation going forward.

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

Marta Aldrich is Senior Statehouse Correspondent for Chalkbeat Tennessee.

This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.

Sign up for Chalkbeat Tennessee’s free daily newsletter to keep up with statewide education policy and Memphis-Shelby County Schools.

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

The preceding article was previously published by the Tennessee Lookout and is republished with permission.

Now more than ever, tough and fair journalism is important. The Tennessee Lookout is your watchdog, telling the stories of politics and policy that affect the people of the Volunteer State.

We’re part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

By Piper Hutchinson | BATON ROUGE, La. – Republican lawmakers plan to leave in a section of the Louisiana constitution that defines marriage as between one man and one woman during a potential constitutional rewrite despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. 

Rep. Beau Beaullieu, R-New Iberia, the lawmaker carrying the legislation calling for a constitutional convention, said his conservative colleagues want to leave in the “Defense of Marriage” section just in case the landmark 2015 civil rights case Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, is overturned. 

“I’ve had requests to leave it in. I haven’t had any requests to remove it,” Beaullieu said in an interview with the Illuminator. Beaullieu declined to name who requested to leave the unconstitutional section in, but said he received “many” requests to do so. 

About 62% of Louisianians support same-sex marriage, according to a 2022 survey from the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute, which also found approximately half of Republicans nationwide support same-sex marriage. 

Lawmakers are currently discussing Beaullieu’s House Bill 800 that would assemble a constitutional convention, with 144 legislators and 27 delegates appointed by the governor meeting to make changes to the document. 

Beaullieu has said the delegates would use the convention to move some portions of the constitution into statute, which would make it substantially easier for legislators to change them. 

Neither Beaullieu or Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, who is the driving force behind the convention, has been forthcoming about what they want to remove from the constitution, although they have promised to wall off public school funding protections and the homestead exemption property tax break in the constitution. While lawmakers have billed this as a limited convention to “refresh” the constitution, delegates likely would have authority to change anything they wanted. 

Kate Kelly, a spokesperson for Landry, did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

Article XII Section 15 of the 1973 constitution

Marriage in the state of Louisiana shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall construe this constitution or any state law to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any member of a union other than the union of one man and one woman. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall recognize any marriage contracted in any other jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman.

The Louisiana State Law Institute, which is required by law to provide a report on unconstitutional and preempted state laws to the legislature every other year, has included this portion of the constitution in every report since 2016. 

The Institute has recommended the legislature pass a constitutional amendment to the voters to change the definition as not a marriage between one man and one woman, but as between two natural persons. 

While the legislature has declined to do this, it has instructed new printings of the constitution to include a note regarding the Obergefell decision below the section. 

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court found that same-sex couples could not be deprived the right to marry under 14th Amendment protections. As a result of this ruling, same-sex couples now have a legal right to marry in every U.S. state. 

After the Obergefell ruling, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed its ruling in Robicheaux v. Caldwell, which in 2014 upheld Louisiana’s ban on same-sex marriage. In the Robicheaux reversal order, the court explicitly stated that the portion of Louisiana’s constitution banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. 

Article XII Section 15 was added to the constitution in 2004 after being approved by 78% of voters. The constitutional amendment was proposed by then state Rep. Steve Scalise, who is now the U.S. House majority leader. 

Legislators have made several attempts to repeal this portion of the constitution, most recently in the current legislative session. House Bill 98 by Rep. Mandie Landry, D-New Orleans, was shelved in its first committee hearing. The bill would have complied with the Louisiana Law Institute’s recommendation by defining marriage as “the union of two persons.” 

Landry said she intends to bring up the proposal again if the constitutional convention happens. 

The bill was sidelined at the request of House Speaker Pro Tempore Rep. Mike Johnson, R-Pineville, who argued the Legislature should avoid advancing bills that would put constitutional questions on the ballot in light of the potential constitutional convention. 

Rep. Landry argued it’s important to repeal that section of the constitution not just for symbolic reasons, but because many fear further legal attacks on same-sex marriage. 

“Younger people don’t stay up at night thinking they want to leave here because the Constitution is too long, but they do think about and they do leave because of issues like same sex, marriage, abortion, reproductive issues,” she said. 

Beaullieu’s bill, which calls for a constitutional convention this summer, has received approval from the House of Representatives but has not yet been scheduled for a hearing in the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee. 

If a convention was held — which is still uncertain due to skepticism from senators — it would take place in three stages: An organizational session to select convention leaders could take place as soon as May 30. Convention committees would then meet in June and July to discuss potential constitutional changes, and wrap up their work by Aug. 1, when the full convention would then meet until Aug. 15. The finished product would then be on a ballot for voter approval at the same time of the presidential election in November.

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

Piper Hutchinson is a reporter for the Louisiana Illuminator. She has covered the Legislature and state government extensively for the LSU Manship News Service and The Reveille, where she was named editor in chief for summer 2022.

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

The preceding article was previously published by the Louisiana Illuminator and is republished with permission.

The Louisiana Illuminator is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization with a mission to cast light on how decisions in Baton Rouge are made and how they affect the lives of everyday Louisianians. Our in-depth investigations and news stories, news briefs and commentary help residents make sense of how state policies help or hurt them and their neighbors statewide.

We’re part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

PHILADELPHIA, Penn. – The Pennsylvania State Police who executed a violent traffic stop on the morning of March 2, arresting Celena Morrison-McLean, executive director of Philadelphia Mayor’s Office of LGBT Affairs, and her husband Darius McLean on a Philadelphia expressway, is no longer employed by the State Police.

In a statement to multiple media outlets, Pennsylvania State Police spokesman Lt. Adam Reed said that the trooper, whose name has not been released, is no longer employed although Reed did not specify if the trooper resigned or was terminated by the agency.

According to Reed the trooper had been placed on restricted duty following the incident and was not on patrol during the investigation of the incident.

Appearing before reporters in a press conference on March 9, the executive director of Philadelphia Mayor’s Office of LGBT Affairs accused the State Police trooper who executed a violent traffic stop last weekend involving her and her husband of racial profiling.

The couple alongside with their attorneys, said they’re considering a lawsuit following a violent incident in a traffic stop last weekend during which the couple alleges the state trooper unjustly pulled her over and arrested her and her husband because they’re Black. 

Philadelphia LGBT executive says state trooper racially profiled her

“Darius and I did nothing wrong and did not deserve to be treated the way we were treated during the arrest,” Morrison-McLean said. “At a minimum, the Pennsylvania State Police owe Darius and I an apology that is equally as public as the way they disregarded our rights on Interstate 76.”

In a police report, the trooper said McLean became verbally combative toward him, but the couple’s attorney, Kevin Mincey, said the trooper was the aggressor, claiming he pulled out his service weapon and forced McLean out of the car.

Mobile phone video of what followed went viral on social media. Morrison-McLean can be heard in the background screaming for her husband as the trooper cuffed him, who was on the ground at this point. She told the trooper that she worked “for the mayor”, to which he responded: “Shut the fuck up.”

“Darius had his hands up, window down and his hazards on,” Mincey said. “He explained, ‘I stopped because you pulled over my wife.’”

Penn. state trooper in altercation with prominent LGBTQ+ leader

Pennsylvania State Police alleged McLean refused multiple lawful orders from the trooper, who then arrested him. “There’s no resistance by Celena,” Mincey said. “No resistance by Darius.”

Morrison-McLean told the reporters gathered for the press conference: “I’ve never felt more helpless than in those moments. It’s disheartening that, as Black individuals, we are all too familiar with the use of the phrase, ‘Stop resisting,’ as a green light for excessive force by law enforcement.”

The Pennsylvania State Police spokesman also said that the agency will not have further comment on this incident.

By Deena Winter | ST. PAUL, Minn. – The Minnesota Legislature voted Tuesday to restore an exemption in state law protecting religious organizations and schools against claims of gender identity-based discrimination.

Last year, lawmakers modernized definitions in the Minnesota Human Rights Act prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. But no corresponding religious exemption was added for gender identity, so current law allows a church to discriminate against a gay applicant but not a trans applicant. 

Some Republican lawmakers assumed it was an oversight, and introduced bills and amendments restoring the exemption, but earlier in the session, the majority Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party largely ignored their pleas, leading to passionate, angry debates in committee hearings.

Numerous religious groups pushed for what they said was religious freedom protected by the state and federal constitutions, arguing they should be able to employ people who adhere to their religious beliefs without the threat of civil rights litigation. 

Republicans mobilized, calling it an “unprecedented attack” on religious autonomy.

But Tuesday, the Senate unanimously approved a bill (HF4021/SF4292) reinstating the religious exemption. 

True North Legal, which represents religious groups, had already threatened litigation, noting the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the government cannot control religious schools’ hiring decisions.

Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, released a statement saying the vote was the result of  weeks of negotiations.

“Passing this amendment and the bill today secures in law the right we all have under the Constitution,” Limmer said.

The House followed suit later Tuesday, and now the bill heads to Gov. Tim Walz’s desk. 

It was a stunning turnabout from the DFL reaction earlier this session. 

When Rep. Harry Niska, R-Ramsey, suggested in a late February committee hearing that the DFL inadvertently forgot to include the religious exemption last session, committee chair Rep. Jamie Becker-Finn, DFL-Roseville, corrected him, saying, “It was not an oversight.”

Rep. Brion Curran, DFL-White Bear Lake, was visibly upset by religious leaders’ testimony in support of the exemption, calling it “disgusting,” “infuriating,” “disrespectful” and a direct attack on trans and non-binary people.

“I am appalled that we are having this discussion,” Curran said. “Where’s the dignity in not recognizing our fellow neighbors?”

Minnesota’s first out trans lawmaker, Rep. Leigh Finke, DFL-St. Paul, said during the hearing that the state took big steps toward protecting people’s rights last year — opening its doors as a refuge for transgender people — and said lawmakers weren’t about to allow discrimination against the LGBTQ community.

Niska released a statement saying it’s not the language he originally proposed, but achieves his goal of retaining a broad statutory exemption for both sexual orientation and gender. 

“Both sides had to be flexible in working to resolve this issue and I think the finished product respects all Minnesotans,” Niska said. “It protects institutional autonomy and the rights of association for people of faith.”

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

Deena Winter has covered local and state government in four states over the past three decades, with stints at the Bismarck Tribune in North Dakota, as a correspondent for the Denver Post, city hall reporter in Lincoln, Nebraska, and regional editor for Southwest News in the western Minneapolis suburbs.

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

The preceding article was previously published by the Minnesota Reformer and is republished with permission.

The Minnesota Reformer is an independent, nonprofit news organization dedicated to keeping Minnesotans informed and unearthing stories other outlets can’t or won’t tell. We’re in the halls of government tracking what elected officials are up to — and monitoring the powerful forces trying to influence them. But we’re also on the streets, at the bars and parks, on farms and in warehouses, telling you stories of the people being affected by the actions of government and big business. And we’re free. No ads. No paywall.

We’re part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

By Whitney Downard  | INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. – In a politically charged and, at times, inflammatory Facebook event, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita waded into a recent discussion on pronouns in the workplace.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that repeatedly misgendering an employee or denying them access to a bathroom consistent with their gender identity amounts to workplace harassment.

Rokita issued a ruling of his own Wednesday, saying that “neither state nor federal law requires a coworker to use the preferred pronouns and names of fellow employees.”

But the office cautioned businesses that even if misgendering someone isn’t a recognized form of discrimination, they could still amount to a “hostile work environment claim.”

“There are no examples in case law where the (mis)use of an employee’s pronouns alone has been held to have created a hostile work environment pursuant to Title VII. However, many of these cases at least imply that repeated use of non-preferred pronouns and names could result in such an outcome, if the conduct is ‘severe or pervasive enough,’” the ruling said.

In the 20-minute Facebook live event, the latest in a series of videos from the office, Rokita denounced the move as part of “a new push by America haters to force the rest of us to embrace the radical gender ideology that they want.”

Rokita went on to describe the participation of transwomen in sports as “an invasion” and called ongoing support for gender diversity “trans-sanity.”

“Most Hoosiers agree that we all should extend love and compassion toward individuals dealing with gender dysphoria. After all, it is a problem. And it should be treated. But it doesn’t need to be affirmed, nor should it,” Rokita said. “Treating these individuals with respect, however, does not require us by law to deny basic truths like the fact that there are only two sexes and an individual is one of them.”

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are intersex, a recognized third sex among scientists. Indiana’s Civil Rights Act doesn’t include sexual orientation or gender identity as protected classes, the attorney general’s office said.

Rokita said the opinion came from a question submitted by Indiana Rep. Mike Speedy, who is running in the 6th Congressional District GOP primary.

“I don’t believe this opinion, in any way, infringes on anyone’s right to be who they think they are. What it does is it protects employers and employees from that ideology from being imposed upon them in a workplace environment. And that’s fair to everyone,” Speedy said.

Rokita said the announcement wasn’t intended to be political, though it comes on the eve of the primary. He said Speedy’s request came in months ago but it took time to compile the ruling.

The Indiana Democratic Party accused Rokita of using taxpayer dollars for political purposes.

“Rokita owes Hoosiers an apology for this obvious political stunt. Whether it’s attacking medical professionals like Dr. Caitlin Bernard or using his office for political games, Rokita’s tenure has been an embarrassment to Indiana. Hoosiers can replace him with a Democratic Attorney General who will respect women’s rights, and focus on protecting taxpayers,” the party said in a statement.

Rokita will likely be on the ballot in November. Party nominees for attorney general are selected through a convention process in Indiana.

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

A native of upstate New York, Whitney previously covered statehouse politics for CNHI’s nine Indiana papers, focusing on long-term healthcare facilities and local government. Prior to her foray into Indiana politics, she worked as a general assignment reporter for The Meridian Star in Meridian, Mississippi. Whitney is a graduate of St. Bonaventure University (#GoBonnies!), a community theater enthusiast and cat mom.

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

The preceding article was previously published by the Indiana Capital Chronicle and is republished with permission.

The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, nonprofit news organization dedicated to giving Hoosiers a comprehensive look inside state government, policy and elections. The site combines daily coverage with in-depth scrutiny, political awareness and insightful commentary.

We’re part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. – The Minneapolis-based retail giant Target has announced that it has scaled back availability of its LGBTQ+ Pride Month collection to select stores and online sales. In May of last year the retailer was forced to remove its LGBTQ+ merchandise after attacks on employees and emailed threats including bomb threats.

In a media statement to the Blade deflecting on specifics regarding the company’s decision to only offer its Pride collection to only about roughly half of its nearly 2,000 stores nationwide, a spokesperson for Target said:

“Target is committed to supporting the LGBTQIA+ community during Pride Month. Beyond our own teams, we will have a presence at local Pride events in Minneapolis and around the country, and we continue to support a number of LGBTQIA+ organizations. Additionally, we will offer a collection of products for Pride, including adult apparel, home products, food and beverage, which has been curated based on guest insights and consumer research. These items, starting at $3, will be available in select stores and on Target.com.”

In an emailed statement reacting to the news Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said:

“Pride merchandise means something. LGBTQ+ people are in every zip code in this country, and we aren’t going anywhere. With LGBTQ+ people making up 30% of Gen Z, companies need to understand that community members and allies want businesses that express full-hearted support for the community. That includes visible displays of allyship. 

“Target’s decision is disappointing and alienates LGBTQ+ individuals and allies at the risk of not only their bottom line but also their values.”

Target stores nationwide receive bomb threats over LGBTQ merch

In May 2023, police departments in Utah, Ohio, and Pennsylvania aided by assistance from agents from Federal Bureau of Investigation Field Offices in Ohio and Utah investigated threats,  including a bomb threat to multiple Utah locations, made by email to local media referencing the retail chain Target’s LGBTQ merchandise collections celebrating LGBTQ+ Pride Month.

At the time last May, Target spokesperson Kayla Castaneda released a statement from the company:

“For more than a decade, Target has offered an assortment of products aimed at celebrating Pride Month. Since introducing this year’s collection, we’ve experienced threats impacting our team members’ sense of safety and well-being while at work. Given these volatile circumstances, we are making adjustments to our plans, including removing items that have been at the center of the most significant confrontational behavior. Our focus now is on moving forward with our continuing commitment to the LGBTQIA+ community and standing with them as we celebrate Pride Month and throughout the year.”

By Juliette Rihl/LOOKOUT | PHOENIX, Ariz. – Twenty-two states have comprehensive LGBTQ+ civil rights laws on the books. Arizona, though, is not one of them.

The fight to pass an anti-discrimination bill is now more than twenty years old here. Since at least 2002, Arizona lawmakers—mostly Democrats, but also some Republicans—have repeatedly introduced bills that would include sexual orientation and gender identity among the state’s protected classes, such as race, sex, and religion. And although those bills varied in scope, they would have generally protected LGBTQ+ people from discrimination in employment, housing, or public accommodations.

But none of those bills went anywhere.

Instead, protection within the state is enforced by local municipalities; only 11 Arizona cities have ordinances that indicate being LGBTQ+ as a protected class.

Civil rights advocates say a comprehensive statewide anti-discrimination law is necessary. The urban cities that provide protections only account for half of the state’s general population, and research shows LGBTQ+ adults—especially in rural areas—are more likely to experience unemployment or homelessness compared to others.

And though there is competing data on whether or not nondiscrimination bills actually do what they intend, advocates say that it’s better to have something than nothing.

ONCE BIPARTISAN, NOW ONE-SIDED

Employment protections for LGBTQ+ people exist at the federal level, but if the Supreme Court were to roll back those protections it could leave queer people vulnerable, similar to when states saw local abortion laws triggered after Roe v. Wade was overturned.

Darrell Hill, policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, expressed the importance of a statewide law to avoid that, and protect people from experiencing homelessness or joblessness: “These are very serious consequences of discrimination,” he said.

There was a time when anti-discrimination bills did seem like they could have been a reality with Republican support.

In 2002, when Republicans held a supermajority in the House, six of them signed onto a nondiscrimination House bill with Democrats. However, the bill was never brought up for a vote and died in committee.

That support has since dwindled significantly. Between 2018 and 2022, bills that would have provided protections in employment, housing, and public accommodations had at least one member of each party backing them.

And over the past two years, amid an onslaught of anti-LGBTQ+ bills in the Arizona legislature, Republican support for a bill to protect queer people from discrimination has gone from slim to nonexistent. Even openly gay Republican lawmaker, state Rep. Matt Gress (R-Phoenix), did not support any of the three bills introduced by Democrats the last two sessions.

And attempts to make the legislation bipartisan have been stymied, said state Rep. Oscar De Los Santos (D-Phoenix) who also is the co-chair of the LGBTQ+ Legislative Caucus. He said he reached out to Gress to try to gain support for HB2625, an anti-discrimination bill introduced this past session. Gress did not respond, he told LOOKOUT.

De Los Santos said Republicans who would otherwise support the legislation might be afraid to go against their party. He noted that Republican leadership recently removed Gress from the House Appropriations Committee in April after voting alongside Democrats to repeal the state’s near-total abortion ban.

Gress did not respond to multiple requests for comment from LOOKOUT.

WHAT WILL IT TAKE?

Seventy-seven percent of Arizonans favor laws protecting LGBTQ+ people from discrimination,  according to a 2022 survey by the nonprofit public opinion research institute PRRI.

So why hasn’t something happened?

“As a matter of reality it’s going to take us to flip the legislature,” De Los Santos said.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle agree, especially as Republicans aligned with the state’s “Freedom Caucus” wield more power and move farther to the right on social issues, such as limiting transgender health care or criminalizing drag in public areas.

State Sen. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) who is associated with the state’s Freedom Caucus, said he and his colleagues disagree with a bill to provide protections for LGBTQ+ Arizonans. He was the only Republican to respond to LOOKOUT’s request for comment.

“I don’t think it would be good public policy, in that it would take away some people’s freedom of association, and it would generate lawsuits, and it would step on some people’s religious principles,” he said. A bill that did give religious exemptions was introduced last session, but Kavanagh still didn’t support it.

Kavanagh was the first lawmaker in the nation to propose a bathroom ban for trans students, and was the sponsor of multiple anti-LGBTQ+ bills this year, including one that would “out” queer kids to parents. Most of his bills passed the legislature but were vetoed by Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat.

Rep. Analise Ortiz (D-Phoenix), and State Rep. Lorena Austin (D-Mesa), both members of the LGBTQ+ Legislative Caucus, agreed that Democratic control is necessary to getting the legislation passed: “Republicans have repeatedly shown their complete refusal to pass even the most low-level bills that would support the LGBTQ+ community,” Ortiz said.

This article was originally published by LOOKOUT, a nonprofit queer-focused news organization covering Arizona’s LGBTQ+ communities.

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

Juliette Rihl is a freelance journalist for LOOKOUT focused on equity issues. She was named Pennsylvania’s emerging reporter of the year in 2021.

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

The preceding article was previously published by the Arizona Mirror and is republished with permission.

Amplifying the voices of Arizonans whose stories are unheard; shining a light on the relationships between people, power and policy; and holding public officials to account.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.