Massachusetts Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Initiative

Last updated

Massachusetts Question 3, 2018
November 6, 2018 (2018-11-06)
Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Veto Referendum
Voting system First Past the Post
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svgYes1,806,74267.82%
Light brown x.svgNo857,40132.18%
Valid votes2,664,14396.78%
Invalid or blank votes88,5223.22%
Total votes2,752,665100.00%
MA-06112018-ballot-3-counties.svg
MA Question 3 2018 Municipalities.svg
MA Question 3 2018.svg
Source: Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth

The Massachusetts Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Initiative is a state-wide referendum passed by Massachusetts voters in the 6 November 2018 mid-term election that prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of gender identity. The vote upholds language which was already present in the state anti-discrimination statute, defeating an attempt to veto it by public referendum. It is the first state-wide anti-discrimination statute passed by referendum supporting transgender rights in the United States. [1] [2]

Contents

Statute

On July 7, 2016, “An Act Relative to Transgender Anti-Discrimination” (Senate Bill 2407) was passed by a voice vote in the Senate and 117-36 in the House. It was signed by Governor of Massachusetts Charlie Baker the next day. It took effect on October 1, 2016. It amended Section 92A of chapter 272 of the General Laws to cover "gender identity" in "any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement that lawfully segregates or separates access...based on a person’s sex" such that all individuals shall be treated "consistent with the person’s gender identity." [3] The places of "public accommodation" where discrimination is forbidden include, according to GLAD, "restaurants, libraries, hotels, malls, public transportation, and beyond," as well as "bathrooms and locker rooms." [4]

Support for the "No" vote

Keep MA Safe opposed the 2016 anti-discrimination law and advocated its repeal. A press release on their website dated September 28, 2016, said that "hundreds of volunteers" had met the deadline to provide the 32,375 signatures required to get the question on the ballot. [5]

Their campaign finance report filed September 7, 2018, indicated that the group raised $286,000 since the campaign began in 2017. Of this, $106,300 was raised in 2018. [6]

An older group, MassResistance, founded by Brian Camenker in 1995, feared that Keep MA Safe's campaign was inadequate. One month before the election, MassResistance began its own splinter campaign with its preferred, "admittedly more inflammatory alternative" message that gender is determined by sex, that transgender identity is a mental disorder, and that there should be no civil rights based on transgender identity. [7]

Several days after the election, MassResistance published an article undercutting Keep MA Safe's main argument. The claim that transgender women pose a threat in public bathrooms, MassResistance alleged, was an invention. MassResistance said that this "largely contrived" position had been used in the Massachusetts political campaign mainly because it appealed to emotion and had been used successfully when the city of Houston voted against housing and employment rights three years earlier; however, it had failed in Massachusetts. "Our side concocted the 'bathroom safety' male predator argument," MassResistance claimed. [8]

Support for the "Yes" vote

Freedom For All Massachusetts, also known as "Yes on 3," formed to campaign for the "Yes" vote to preserve the existing anti-discrimination law.

The political advocacy coalition included:

Freedom for All Massachusetts' campaign finance report filed September 7, 2018, indicated that the group raised $2.7 million since the campaign began in 2017. Of this, $1.8 million was raised in 2018. [21]

"Yes" was endorsed by the city councils of Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Melrose, Arlington, Lexington, [22] and Northampton. [23] It was "wholeheartedly" endorsed by The Boston Globe newspaper, [24] and The Salem News also urged a "Yes" vote. [25]

Election result

The vote on November 6, 2018, affirmed the law, [26] 67.8 percent to 32.2 percent (1,781,041 to 846,804). [27]

Studies

Amira Hasenbush, Andrew R. Flores, and Jody L. Herman of the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law determined that the anti-discrimination laws in several cities did not affect the local rate of crimes reported in restrooms. They examined Massachusetts cities before and after they passed such laws (which the cities had done to protect transgender people before the 2016 anti-discrimination law was applied statewide) as well as Massachusetts cities that never passed any such law. The study was published in Sexuality Research and Social Policy in July 2018. [28] [29] [30]

A 2013 study of transgender and gender-nonconforming adult residents of Massachusetts found that 65% of respondents had experienced discrimination in public accommodations (in some cases, regarding bathrooms) within the previous year. [31]

Polling

Date(s) conductedYesNoUndecidedLeadMargin of errorSampleConducted byMethod
October 25–28, 201868%26%7%42%± 4.4%502 likely voters The MassINC Polling Group Landline and cell phone live interviews
October 24–27, 201868%28%4%40%± 4.4%500 likely voters Suffolk University Political Research Center Archived 2018-10-31 at the Wayback Machine Landline and cell phone live interviews
September 13–17, 201873.2%17.4%9.2%55.8%-500 likely voters Suffolk University Political Research Center Archived 2018-09-20 at the Wayback Machine
June 14, 201848.8%37.2%14%11.6%-500 likely voters Suffolk University Political Research Center Archived 2018-06-15 at the Wayback Machine
May 22–26, 201852%38%11%14%± 4.4%501 registered voters The MassINC Polling Group Landline and cell phone live interviews

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Violence against transgender people</span> Violence or victimization against transgender people

Violence against transgender people includes emotional, physical, sexual, or verbal violence targeted towards transgender people. The term has also been applied to hate speech directed at transgender people and at depictions of transgender people in the media that reinforce negative stereotypes about them. Trans and non-binary gender adolescents can experience bashing in the form of bullying and harassment. When compared to their cisgender peers, trans and non-binary gender youth are at increased risk for victimisation, which has been shown to increase their risk of substance abuse.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in the United States</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in the United States are among the most advanced in the world, with public opinion and jurisprudence changing significantly since the late 1980s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition</span>

The 'Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC) is an organization dedicated to ending discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression. The MTPC educates the public, lobbies state and local government, and encourages political activism.

MassResistance is an American organization that promotes anti-LGBT and socially conservative positions. The group is designated an anti-LGBT hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, in part for claims linking LGBT people with pedophilia and zoophilia, and claims that suicide prevention programs aimed at gay youth were created by homosexual activists to normalize and "lure" children into homosexuality.

In the United States, the rights of transgender people vary considerably by jurisdiction. In recent decades, there has been an expansion of federal, state, and local laws and rulings to protect transgender Americans; however, many rights remain unprotected, and some rights are being eroded. Since 2020, there has been a national movement by conservative/right-wing politicians and organizations to target transgender rights. There has been a steady increase in the number of anti-transgender bills introduced each year, especially in Republican-led states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Massachusetts</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Massachusetts enjoy the same rights as non-LGBTQ people. The U.S. state of Massachusetts is one of the most LGBT-supportive states in the country. In 2004, it became the first U.S. state to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, and the sixth jurisdiction worldwide, after the Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Arizona</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Arizona may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Arizona, and same-sex couples are able to marry and adopt. Nevertheless, the state provides only limited protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Several cities, including Phoenix and Tucson, have enacted ordinances to protect LGBTQ people from unfair discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in North Dakota</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of North Dakota may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in North Dakota, and same-sex couples and families headed by same-sex couples are eligible for all of the protections available to opposite-sex married couples; same-sex marriage has been legal since June 2015 as a result of Obergefell v. Hodges. State statutes do not address discrimination on account of sexual orientation or gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal under federal law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in South Dakota</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of South Dakota may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in South Dakota, and same-sex marriages have been recognized since June 2015 as a result of Obergefell v. Hodges. State statutes do not address discrimination on account of sexual orientation or gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal under federal law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Montana</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Montana may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal in Montana since 1997. Same-sex couples and families headed by same-sex couples are eligible for all of the protections available to opposite-sex married couples, as same-sex marriage has been recognized since November 2014. State statutes do not address discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal under federal law. A number of cities also provide protections in housing and public accommodations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Idaho</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Idaho face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ people. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Idaho, and same-sex marriage has been legal in the state since October 2014. State statutes do not address discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal under federal law. A number of cities and counties provide further protections, namely in housing and public accommodations. A 2019 Public Religion Research Institute opinion poll showed that 71% of Idahoans supported anti-discrimination legislation protecting LGBTQ people, and a 2016 survey by the same pollster found majority support for same-sex marriage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Kansas</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Kansas have federal protections, but many face some legal challenges on the state level that are not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Kansas under the US Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy laws that only apply to same-sex sexual acts. The state has prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations since 2020. Proposed bills restricting preferred gender identity on legal documents, bans on transgender people in women's sports, bathroom use restrictions, among other bills were vetoed numerous times by Democratic Governor Laura Kelly since 2021. However, many of Kelly's vetoes were overridden by the Republican supermajority in the Kansas legislature and became law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Alaska</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights in the U.S. state of Alaska have evolved significantly over the years. Since 1980, same-sex sexual conduct has been allowed, and same-sex couples can marry since October 2014. The state offers few legal protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, leaving LGBTQ people vulnerable to discrimination in housing and public accommodations; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal under federal law. In addition, four Alaskan cities, Anchorage, Juneau, Sitka and Ketchikan, representing about 46% of the state population, have passed discrimination protections for housing and public accommodations.

The Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) is a 2019 New York law which added gender identity and gender expression to the state's human rights and hate crimes laws as protected classes; banned discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations based on gender identity and gender expression; and provided enhanced penalties for bias-motivated crimes. GENDA was first introduced in 2003. The bill passed the New York State Assembly every year from 2008 to 2019, but did not receive a floor vote in the New York State Senate until January 2019. It was passed by each house of the New York State Legislature on January 15, 2019, and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed it into law on January 25, 2019.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equality Act (United States)</span> Bill to prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in the 117th Congress

The Equality Act was a bill in the United States Congress, that, if passed, would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, education, federally funded programs, credit, and jury service. The Supreme Court's June 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County protects gay and transgender people in matters of employment, but not in other respects. The Bostock ruling also covered the Altitude Express and Harris Funeral Homes cases.

Proposition 1 was a referendum held on November 3, 2015, on the anti-discrimination ordinance known as the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO). The ordinance was intended to improve anti-discrimination coverage based on sexual orientation and gender identity in Houston, specifically in areas such as housing and occupation where no anti-discrimination policy existed. Proposition 1 asked voters whether they approved HERO. Houston voters rejected Proposal 1 by a vote of 61% to 39%.

A bathroom bill is the common name for legislation or a statute that denies access to public toilets by gender or transgender identity. Bathroom bills affect access to sex-segregated public facilities for an individual based on a determination of their sex as defined in some specific way, such as their sex as assigned at birth, their sex as listed on their birth certificate, or the sex that corresponds to their gender identity. A bathroom bill can either be inclusive or exclusive of transgender individuals, depending on the aforementioned definition of their sex.

The legal and regulatory history of transgender and transsexual people in the United States begins in the 1960s. Such legislation covers federal, state, municipal, and local levels, as well as military justice. It reflects broader societal attitudes which have shifted significantly over time and have impacted legislative and judicial outcomes.

Three ballot measures were certified for the November 6, 2018, general election in the state of Massachusetts.

References

  1. ↑ "Massachusetts Election Results". The New York Times . November 6, 2018. Retrieved November 6, 2018.
  2. ↑ Gstalter, Morgan (November 6, 2018). "Massachusetts passes first statewide referendum protecting transgender rights". The Hill. Retrieved November 6, 2018.
  3. ↑ "Bill S.2407, 189th General Court (2015 - 2016) An Act Relative to Transgender Anti-Discrimination". Massachusetts Legislature. Retrieved 28 May 2018.
  4. ↑ "MA Public Accommodations Q&A". GLAD: Legal Advocates and Defenders. 11 July 2016. Retrieved 28 May 2018.
  5. ↑ "Bathroom Law Repeal Effort Hits Its Mark". Keep MA Safe. 28 September 2016. Retrieved 23 October 2018.[ permanent dead link ]
  6. ↑ Schoenberg, Shira (10 September 2018). "Transgender rights groups outspend opponents in Massachusetts ballot question fight". MassLive. Retrieved 12 September 2018.
  7. ↑ "Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly say "yes" to transgender "bathroom" law. What happened?". MassResistance. 9 November 2018. Retrieved 6 December 2018.
  8. ↑ "Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly say "yes" to transgender "bathroom" law. What happened?". MassResistance. 9 November 2018. Retrieved 6 December 2018.
  9. ↑ "Massachusetts Businesses Say: Discrimination Hurts Our Bottom Line". Freedom for All Massachusetts. Retrieved 6 December 2018.
  10. ↑ "Boston Children's Hospital Endorses Freedom For All Massachusetts Campaign!". Freedom For All Massachusetts. 1 June 2018. Retrieved 1 June 2018.
  11. ↑ "Massachusetts Faith Leaders for Freedom". Freedom For All Massachusetts. Archived from the original on 6 December 2018. Retrieved 6 December 2018.
  12. ↑ "Massachusetts Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, and Women's Organizations for Freedom". Freedom for All Massachusetts. Archived from the original on 6 December 2018. Retrieved 6 December 2018.
  13. ↑ "Massachusetts Higher Education for Freedom". Freedom for All Massachusetts. Retrieved 6 December 2018.
  14. ↑ "Massachusetts Labor Unions for Freedom". Freedom for All Massachusetts. Retrieved 6 December 2018.
  15. ↑ "Transgender Equality". ACLU Massachusetts. 2016-06-10. Retrieved 6 December 2018.
  16. ↑ "Massachusetts Nonprofit and Advocacy Organizations for Freedom". Freedom For All Massachusetts. Retrieved 6 December 2018.
  17. ↑ Stahl, Shane (3 May 2018). "Freedom For All Massachusetts Launches Campaign to Defend Transgender Dignity at the Ballot in November". Freedom For All Massachusetts. Retrieved 1 June 2018.
  18. ↑ "Massachusetts Mayors for Freedom". Freedom For All Massachusetts. Archived from the original on 6 December 2018. Retrieved 6 December 2018.
  19. ↑ "Massachusetts Law Enforcement for Freedom". Freedom For All Massachusetts. Retrieved 6 December 2018.
  20. ↑ "About Freedom for All Massachusetts". Freedom For All Massachusetts. Archived from the original on 28 May 2018. Retrieved 28 May 2018.
  21. ↑ Schoenberg, Shira (10 September 2018). "Transgender rights groups outspend opponents in Massachusetts ballot question fight". MassLive. Retrieved 12 September 2018.
  22. ↑ "Cambridge City Council Backs Yes on 3 Campaign to Uphold Transgender Protections in Massachusetts". Freedom For All Massachusetts. 24 September 2018. Archived from the original on 22 February 2020. Retrieved 25 September 2018.
  23. ↑ Aresco, Nicholas (23 October 2018). "Northampton council supporting "Yes" on Question 3 to protect transgender individuals". WWLP. Archived from the original on 27 October 2018. Retrieved 27 October 2018.
  24. ↑ "Stand up for equality: Vote Yes on 3" . The Boston Globe. 18 October 2018. Retrieved 18 October 2018.
  25. ↑ "Our view: Ballot questions will have wide impact". Salem News. 29 October 2018. Retrieved 31 October 2018.
  26. ↑ Creamer, Lisa (6 November 2018). "Mass. Votes 'Yes' On Question 3 To Keep Law Protecting Transgender People In Public Accommodations". WBUR. Retrieved 7 November 2018.
  27. ↑ "Massachusetts Ballot questions, 3 - Gender Identity Rights". The Boston Globe . November 8, 2018. Retrieved November 8, 2018. 100% reporting
  28. ↑ Ebbert, Stephanie (12 September 2018). "Study finds no link between transgender rights law and bathroom crimes". Boston Globe. Retrieved 12 September 2018.
  29. ↑ "Gender-identity inclusive nondiscrimination laws do not jeopardize safety in public bathrooms". Williams Institute. 12 September 2018. Retrieved 12 September 2018.
  30. ↑ Hasenbush, Amira; Flores, Andrew; Herman, Jody (23 July 2018). "Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Laws in Public Accommodations: a Review of Evidence Regarding Safety and Privacy in Public Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Changing Rooms". Sexuality Research and Social Policy. 16: 70–83. doi:10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z. ISSN   1868-9884. S2CID   149893864.
  31. ↑ Reisner, SL; White, JM; Dunham, EE; Heflin, K; Begenyi, J; Cahill, S; The Project Voice Team. "Discrimination and Health in Massachusetts: A statewide survey of transgender and gender nonconforming adults (2014)" (PDF). Fenway Health. Retrieved 15 September 2018.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.