By Jemma Stephenson  | MONTGOMERY, Ala. – A bill that would have expanded Alabama’s “Don’t Say Gay” law died on the final day of the 2024 regular session.

HB 130, sponsored by Rep. Mack Butler, R-Rainbow City, would have extended Alabama’s prohibition on discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity from kindergarten to fifth grade to kindergarten to eighth grade. It also would have banned  flags or other insignia indicating gender identity or sexual orientation.

Butler said in a Friday phone interview that he didn’t know what the issues were in the final days of the session but said there was a filibuster in the Senate “which is not uncommon.” 

The legislation was the latest in a years-long attempt by Alabama Republicans to push LGBTQ+ Alabamians out of public life and in some cases restrict their health care. In 2021, the Legislature passed a ban on transgender students playing high school sports and the original “Don’t Say Gay” law, tacked into a bill restricting bathroom use by transgender youth.  

The following year, the Legislature banned puberty blockers and hormones for use in gender-affirming care for transgender youth. The Legislature last year expanded the transgender sports ban to college athletics. 

Katie Glenn, a policy associate with Southern Poverty Law Center, which opposed the bill, said in a phone interview Friday that it could have had a chilling effect which, she said, was emerging in some areas of the state.

“That chilling effect is absolutely what is intended by bills like HB 130,” she said. “it’s not actually to punish people, although it can be used to do that. It’s to scare people, to scare administrators, staff, teachers and students into hiding who they are while they’re at school.”

Butler also said he was not sure why the bill began moving again near the end of the session but said that bills “deemed a little controversial” are sometimes pushed back due to the amount they can take to pass.

“They shut down the House and the Senate,” he said.

But Butler said he would bring the bill back next year. He said that he has not met any parents who want the topics discussed in schools and claimed that “there is a move across this nation to sexualize our children.”

“Our schools in Alabama aren’t performing well enough to be going away from academics,” he said.

Legislative questions

The bill passed the House in late April and was in position for a final vote in the Senate. But Democrats repeatedly criticized the measure, and even some conservative Republicans had questions about its scope.

As originally filed, the bill would have extended the ban up to 12th grade. Butler described it in a House committee meeting as a measure to “purify” public schools, a statement he walked back after criticism from Rep. Barbara Drummond, D-Mobile. Drummond later amended the bill on the House floor to limit the grades to eighth grade.

In the Senate committee, senators had questions about the extent of the bill and potential constitutional violations, especially around the flag and insignia. One speaker suggested the bill was broad enough that it would ban rainbow stickers in parking lots. Sen. Larry Stutts, R-Tuscumbia, said he was “confused” after Butler said that parking lots were not part of school property. “The property is not the parking lot?” he asked.

“Well, we’re talking about the actual building,” said Butler.

The bill passed out of committee 5-2-2.

Butler said Friday that that concern is “ridiculous” and one of the committee members might have been having fun. He compared it to teachers being allowed to have political bumper stickers but not political signs in classrooms.

Glenn said the confusion could have contributed to the bill’s demise.

“There were lots of questions from legislators on both sides of the aisle,” she said.  

She said the vague language bill does make it unclear what the impact of the bill would ultimately be.

Glenn said the bill eventually suffered from organizing from people in the state, as well as the work of Democratic lawmakers, especially in filibustering.

Carmarion D. Anderson-Harvey, Human Rights Campaign’s Alabama state director, said in a statement Friday that Alabama lawmakers should spend their time on other issues, saying that LGBTQ+ Alabamians would continue fighting “despite years of dehumanizing rhetoric and relentless attacks on our community’s existence.”

“Most Americans, in addition to Alabamians, see these bills for what they really are – disgraceful, MAGA-led attempts to recycle false and outdated tropes about LGBTQ+ identities,” the statement said. “Alabama has real issues facing education, voting rights, and criminal justice reform, and now it’s time that lawmakers turn their attention to those issues instead of wasting taxpayers’ money to demonize an entire community.”

“Don’t Say Gay” laws had spread around conservative states, though they have also brought litigation Florida, which passed a version of the bill in 2022, settled a lawsuit over it in March, according to the Associated Press.

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

Jemma Stephenson covers education as a reporter for the Alabama Reflector. She previously worked at the Montgomery Advertiser and graduated from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.

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

The preceding article was previously published by the Alabama Reflector and is republished with permission.

The Alabama Reflector is an independent, nonprofit news outlet dedicated to covering state government and politics in the state of Alabama. Through daily coverage and investigative journalism, The Reflector covers decision makers in Montgomery; the issues affecting Alabamians, and potential ways to move our state forward.

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

By John Cole | HARRISBURG, Penn. – Later this month, Pennsylvania will mark 10 years since a judge struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. But lawmakers and advocates say there’s still work to be done, and that it’s time to codify marriage equality protections into law. 

“Too often we have seen long held rights and freedoms vanish in the blink of an eye,” state Sen. Carolyn Comitta (D-Chester) said at a press conference last Tuesday at the Capitol in Harrisburg, alongside fellow members of the Pennsylvania LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus. “The fact is, we cannot rely solely on the courts to fix the failings of our laws. There is just too much at stake.”

“We have the power to affirm this right,” she added. “And we must continue to advance equality for same sex couples, and all LGBTQ+ individuals in Pennsylvania.”

In May 2014, a federal judge ruled that Pennsylvania’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ended same-sex marriage bans nationwide.

Comitta and state Reps. Jessica Benham (D-Allegheny) and Malcolm Kenyatta (D-Philadelphia) have legislation currently before the House Judiciary Committee that would update current laws to remove “outdated, unconstitutional, and unnecessary sections of law,” in regards to marriage equality. They argue that this language still  present in Pennsylvania’s laws would ban same-sex marriage if both the state and national court decisions were overturned.

Ryan Matthews, Pennsylvania State Director of the Human Rights Campaign, cited a Public Religion Research Institute poll that found 66% of Pennsylvanians support codifying marriage equality into law. He said it was time for Pennsylvania’s legislature to follow the lead of President Joe Biden, who signed the Respect for Marriage Act in 2022.

“So when our allies stand up and introduce important legislation like this, we are here to thank them, but we’re also here to say to all of the other legislators that ask why is this an important step, to show that it is because of basic respect for us and our community that we need to be recognized and protected in law,” Matthews said.

Benham, who was the first openly queer woman elected to the Pennsylvania General Assembly, said legislation needs to go further in protecting marriage equality rights. 

“But I do think it is important, too, when we talk about marriage equality being the law of the land to recognize that there is a group of people who still do not have full access to marriage rights,” Benham said. “Until individuals with disabilities can get married without losing their Social Security, disability or health care benefits, marriage equality is not a law of the land for all.”

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

John Cole is a journalist based in Philadelphia. He’s worked for various outlets such as The Northeast Times, PoliticsPA, and PCN. In these previous roles, he covered a wide range of topics from local civic association meetings to races across the commonwealth. He earned a degree in journalism from Temple University.

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

The preceding article was previously published by the Pennsylvania Capital-Star and is republished with permission.

The Pennsylvania Capital-Star is a nonpartisan, nonprofit news site dedicated to honest and aggressive coverage of state government, politics and policy.

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

By Erin Reed | ATLANTA, Ga. – On Monday, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that transgender health insurance exclusions violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The case was brought by a transgender employee of the Houston County Sheriff’s Office in Georgia who was denied coverage for gender-affirming surgery.

The employee sued in 2019, and after a protracted lawsuit, won at the district court level. Now, with this 11th Circuit Court ruling in favor of transgender employees, a significant precedent is building to protect transgender employees against health insurance restrictions that deny them the ability to get gender-affirming care.

The employee in question first transitioned in 2017. After informing Sheriff Cullen Talton at the Houston County Sheriff’s Office of her decision to transition, she was told that he “does not believe in” being transgender, but that she would be allowed to keep her job.

However, when it came time to obtain gender-affirming surgery, significant controversy erupted: her claims were denied. When she filed a lawsuit to have her surgery covered, the sheriff’s office and county fought against her right to equitable health care coverage.

Since then, the county has spent incredible amounts of money denying the plaintiff her care. As of 2023, Houston County, Georgia, had spent $1,188,701 fighting against providing health care coverage for the transgender plaintiff.

This is significant: ProPublica reports that it is over three times the county’s annual physical and mental health budget. Importantly, no other employee has requested coverage for gender-affirming surgery, so fighting against coverage has significantly cost the county far more than it would have gained by simply providing the employee with that coverage.

Ultimately, a lower court ruled in her favor, stating that such exclusions violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In the decision, the judge stated, “the implication of Bostock is clear… discrimination on the basis of transgender status is discrimination on the basis of sex and is a violation of Title VII.”

The judge then ruled that the exclusion was facially discriminatory and violates Title VII. In doing so, he ordered that the county must drop such exclusions. The plaintiff was also awarded $60,000 following the ruling.

The county appealed the ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which seemed primed to potentially reverse it. Recently, the 11th Circuit has issued harsh rulings toward transgender individuals, such as a ruling that gender-affirming care bans for transgender youth do not violate Equal Protection and Due Process rights.

In this particular case, though, the court considered a different argument: whether such exclusions on transgender insurance coverage violate employment law under the Civil Rights Act. The 11th Circuit concluded that they did: “The exclusion is a blanket denial of coverage for gender-affirming surgery… because transgender persons are the only plan participants who qualify for gender-affirming surgery, the plan denies health care coverage based on transgender status.”

In making its decision, the court referenced two recent developments that may change the legal landscape for transgender people.

In one footnote, the court mentioned Kadel v. Folwell, a case just decided in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, with the court ruling that discrimination against transgender health care violates the Equal Protection Clause. Though it does not reference the case elsewhere, the 11th Circuit used similar legal arguments: that you cannot circumvent discrimination cases by discriminating by proxy. In this case, like in the Kadel case, the judge ruled that discriminating against transgender health care is also discriminating against transgender status.

The judge ruled that the defendant’s “sex is inextricably tied to the denial of coverage for gender-affirming surgery,” and thus, one cannot circumvent discrimination statutes by claiming they are only discriminating against a procedure and not a category of people.

The court also referenced new Title VII guidance from the Biden administration in a footnote when making its decision that exclusions violate those regulations. On April 29, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued updated guidance stating that Title VII protections include protections on gender identity.

Although the guidance does not have the force of law, “numerous courts, including the Supreme Court, have said: Because these guidelines are based on the expertise and careful reasoning of the agency that’s charged with enforcing anti-discrimination laws, they’re to be given deference by the courts,” Christopher Ho, the director of the National Origin and Immigrants’ Rights Program at Legal Aid at Work, stated in an interview with the Washington Post at the time of the guidelines’ release. Now, it appears that a major court, which has ruled against transgender rights in the past, has indeed given those guidelines some credit in their ruling.

The ruling is significant and will likely be one of the many rulings referenced whenever such cases eventually reach the Supreme Court. Multiple courts have ruled in favor of transgender people and their health care, but some significant courts, including in a recent decision by the 11th Circuit Court on health care for transgender youth, have ruled against such legal protections. It is likely that this decision will be cited favorably in many other court cases in the coming months.

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

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

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

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

MINEOLA, N.Y. –  A judge from the Nassau County Supreme Court has struck down Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman’s February 22, 2024 executive order banning transgender girls and women from participating in girls’ and women’s sports at county-run facilities.  

In March, the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging Blakeman’s executive order on behalf of the Long Island Roller Rebels, a Nassau County recreational women’s flat track roller derby league. Under the executive order, the league, which welcomes trans women, was barred from using Nassau County’s facilities. 

The lawsuit argues that the policy violates New York’s Human Rights Law and Civil Rights Law, which explicitly prohibit discrimination based on gender identity following passage of New York’s Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA).  

This past Friday, Nassau County Supreme Court Judge Francis Ricigliano ruled that Blakeman did not have the authority to issue such an order. “In doing so, this Court finds the County Executive acted beyond the scope of his authority as the Chief Executive Officer of Nassau County,” Ricigliano wrote.

Judge Ricigliano also noted that Blakeman could not act without corresponding action by the Nassau County Legislature. It includes representatives from each of the county’s 19 districts.

Reacting Blakeman responded in a statement, saying, “Lack of courage from a Judge who didn’t want to decide the case on its merits. Unfortunately, girls and women are hurt by the Court.”

“We are gratified the court has struck down a harmful policy that belongs in the dustbin of history,” said Gabriella Larios, staff attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union. “The ruling deals a serious blow to County Executive Blakeman’s attempt to score cheap political points by peddling harmful stereotypes about transgender women and girls. We will continue to ensure that the attacks against LGBTQ+ rights that are sweeping the nation will not stand in New York.”  

“Today’s decision is a victory for those who believe that transgender people have the right to participate in sports just like everyone else. It sends a strong message that transphobic discrimination cannot stand,” said Curly Fry, president of Long Island Roller Rebels. “As a league welcoming trans women and committed to providing a safe space for everyone to be their full selves, County Executive Blakeman’s order tried to punish us just because we believe in inclusion and stand against transphobia. Trans people belong everywhere including in sports, and they will not be erased.” 

In early April, U.S. District Court Judge Nusrat Choudhury, who is on the bench of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, denied Blakeman’s request for a temporary restraining order against New York Attorney General Letitia James.

On March 1st, the New York State Attorney General sent a order of cease and desist to Blakeman demanding that the Republican Nassau County Executive rescind his February 22 directive within five days or else face additional legal actions. 

“The law is perfectly clear: you cannot discriminate against a person because of their gender identity or expression. We have no room for hate or bigotry in New York,” the Attorney General wrote. “This executive order is transphobic and blatantly illegal. Nassau County must immediately rescind the order, or we will not hesitate to take decisive legal action.” 

The Nassau County Executive then announced he was filing a lawsuit over the Attorney General’s actions.

WASHINGTON – Citing the rising numbers of violent threats primarily across the digital landscape online including emailed bomb and death threats, officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Homeland Security Investigations have issued warnings that foreign terrorist organizations (FTOS) or their supporters are targeting the LGBTQ+ community during Pride Month.

In a notice released on May 10, the FBI and HSI warn that efforts to commit or inspire violence against LGBTQ+ celebrations, including Pride celebrations or other LGBTQ+-related venues, are compounded by the current heightened threat environment in the United States and other western countries. 

The FBI and HSI noted that June 12, 2024 marks the eighth anniversary of the Pulse Nightclub Orlando shooting, during which the attacker killed 49 and wounded 53 people. After the Pulse shooting, pro-ISIS messaging praised this attack as one of the high-profile attacks in Western countries, and FTO supporters celebrated it. There are concerns that instances like the Pulse anniversary could spark a violent attack.

In addition to the threats posed by off-shore groups, increased threat levels domestically including recently documented instances of homophobic and transphobic threats exemplified recently from reporting by multiple media outlets regarding Libs of TikTok’s creator Chaya Raichik, who had initiated an ongoing campaign against Planet Fitness, demanding a boycott in retaliation for the gym’s trans-inclusive locker room policy.

At least 53 locations of Planet Fitness have reported hoax bomb threats in recent weeks, the threats were primarily reported through emails, and in some cases, phone calls. continuing what has become a trend of violent threats against institutions targeted by Raichik. 

Raichik has a long documented history of fostering anti-LGBTQ+ animus through her posts which in turn has led to what NBC News, Media Matters, the SPLC, the Blade, and others documenting Raichik’s anti-LGBTQ+ acts of arguably stochastic terrorism.

In February, NBC News technology reporter David Ingram, detailed bomb threats and violent threats inspired by Raichik’s social media posts. NBC News identified 33 instances, starting in November 2020, when people or institutions singled out by Libs of TikTok later reported bomb threats or other violent intimidation. 

During his April 11 testimony on Capitol Hill, FBI Director Christopher Wray issued a warning to lawmakers telling a House subcommittee that there is a growing fear among law enforcement officials of possible “coordinated attack” inside the U.S. telling committee members that a “lone-wolf” attack promulgated by events in Middle East are the agency’s overarching worry.

Speaking with the Blade on background, a senior FBI official noted that Pride events in locales other than major urban settings, particularly the largest Pride gatherings in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C. which have a traditionally large police presence, smaller cities and towns are at elevated risk.

In an emailed statement, the FBI said it has, in general, observed an increase in threats of violence targeting institutions like hospitals and schools.

“As a country and organization, we have seen an increase in threats of violence targeting government officials and institutions, houses of worship, schools, and medical facilities, just to name a few. The FBI and our partners take all threats of violence seriously and responding to these threats ties up law enforcement resources.

“When the threats are made as a hoax, it puts innocent people at risk, is a waste of law enforcement’s limited resources, and costs taxpayers. The FBI and our state and local partners will continue to aggressively pursue perpetrators of these threats — real or false — and hold them accountable,” the FBI statement said.”

Reacting to the elevated threat levels in a statement, GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis said:

“A fringe few extremists, domestically and overseas, are irrationally threatened by the rising tide of acceptance for LGBTQ people. It is important to keep Prides safe for all attendees, and for people to keep showing up during Pride and throughout the year to speak up for the equality and safety of their communities and all marginalized people.”

The FBI is asking that Pride event planners, organizers, and others be aware of possible indicators of potential threat activity:

• Violent threats made online, in person, or via mail.
• Unusual or prolonged testing or probing of security measures at events or venues.
• Photography of security related equipment, personnel, or access points consistent with pre-operational surveillance without a reasonable alternative explanation.
• Unusual surveillance or interest in buildings, gatherings, or events.
• Attempts to gain access to restricted areas, bypass security, or impersonate law enforcement officials.
• Observation of or questions about facility security measures, including barriers, restricted areas, cameras, and intrusion detection systems without a reasonable alternative explanation.
• Eliciting information from facility personnel regarding the nature of upcoming events, crowd sizes, busiest times of day, etc. without a reasonable alternative explanation.
• Attempts to enter a restricted area, bypass security, or impersonate law enforcement officials.

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.