November, 03 2010, 04:33pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
1050 Connecticut Ave NW,Suite 65500,Washington, DC 20035,Phone: 202-393-5177
Election 2010: Gains and Losses on Key Contests Impacting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People Nationwide
WASHINGTON
Election 2010 results are proving to be a mixed bag for lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights. Republicans regained control of
the U.S. House, which will pose challenges for advancing progressive
legislation, including LGBT rights legislation. In state contests,
several gubernatorial candidates who support marriage equality were
victorious, but the GOP made numerous gains in state legislatures across
the country, which could adversely affect LGBT rights legislation. In
Congress, meanwhile, there will be four openly gay and lesbian members.
A new federal landscape
LGBT rights advocates will be working in a new federal landscape come
the next Congress after Republicans regained control of the U.S. House,
and Democrats retained a majority in the Senate. This division will
likely mean greater gridlock and tougher challenges advancing any
legislation.
"We'll cut to the chase: The shift in the balance of power will
very likely slow advancement of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
rights legislation in Congress. Does this mean a blockade on LGBT
rights? Not if we can help it. Fact is, our community has always had to
fight -- and fight hard -- for equality. This is nothing new to us. But
here's another fact: There are Americans, from every part of the
country, from every background, from every political leaning and of
every faith, who support equality for LGBT people -- and those vast
numbers grow bigger every day," said National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Executive Director Rea Carey.
"No matter what the political breakdown is in Washington, the
Task Force will continue to identify and work with all fair-minded
members of Congress who are willing to support and defend equality for
LGBT people. Through our New Beginning Initiative, we will continue to
push for the administration and its agencies to make tangible changes
that benefit lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and our
families -- changes that can be done without Congress. We will continue
working with local partners in communities across the country to secure
equality," she added. "Bottom line: While political winds and players
may shift, the fundamental needs of the people do not. No matter who is
in office, people need jobs, protection from discrimination, a roof over
their heads, a way to feed their families, a fair shake. No one should
settle for less -- we won't." Watch video here.
Local measures see mixed results in Ohio and Texas
Provisional ballots are still being tallied, but preliminary results in Bowling Green, Ohio,
show that Ordinance 7905, which would protect LGBT people from housing
discrimination, is passing 50.15 percent to 49.85 percent with all
precincts reporting. Ordinance 7906, which would ban discrimination
against LGBT people in employment, education and public accommodations,
was losing 50.71 percent to 49.29 percent with all precincts reporting.
It could take several weeks for provisional ballots to be verified and
tabulated.
The Task Force has been working with One Bowling Green,
the locally-driven, grassroots campaign, by committing financial
resources, dispatching on-the-ground organizers to Bowling Green, and
sponsoring trainings. There was also a massive student-led voter turnout
campaign at Bowling Green State University (BGSU). Hundreds of BGSU
students, who study, live and work in Bowling Green, stood up and spoke
out for a fair and welcoming community.
Dan Hawes, who heads up the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's
organizing efforts, said: "We are pleased that the housing protections
measure appears to have passed, and look forward to a probable victory
on Ordinance 7906. One Bowling Green ran a tough campaign in an effort
to create a more fair and more welcoming Bowling Green for everyone,
including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. As the
provisional ballots begin to be counted, we look forward to our
continued work with One Bowling Green to ensure that each and every vote
is counted." More to come on this contest.
In El Paso, Texas, voters approved an initiative to end health
benefits for same-sex and unmarried partners of city employees. The
initiative was supported by conservative religious groups that took aim
at the city's domestic partners ordinance after the City Council passed
it last year.
Pro-marriage equality gubernatorial candidates win
Pro-marriage equality candidates were victorious in several gubernatorial races. In New Hampshire, incumbent Democrat John Lynch defeated Republican challenger John Stephen; in New York, Democrat Andrew Cuomo beat Republican Carl Paladino; in California, Democrat Jerry Brown defeated the GOP's Meg Whitman; in Massachusetts, incumbent Democrat Deval Patrick beat Republican challenger Charlie Baker; in Maryland, Democrat Martin O'Malley won his re-election against Republican Robert Ehrlich; in Rhode Island, Independent Lincoln Chafee won over Republican John Robitaille and Democrat Frank Caprio; in Vermont, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Peter Shumlin defeated Republican nominee Brian Dubie.
"These victories once again show that supporting equality is a
winning issue. Voters in these contests have rejected the politics of
division and have elected candidates who embrace equality and oppose the
scapegoating of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people for
political gain. All across the nation, same-sex couples and our families
are sharing our stories with others in a conversation that is
transforming our country. These electoral victories are a testament to
those personal and powerful discussions, as the tide continues to move
nationwide in favor of marriage equality," says Task Force Executive
Director Rea Carey.
In Minnesota, the race remains too close to call. Democrat Mark Dayton has a small lead over Republican candidate Tom Emmer.
There were disappointments on the marriage equality front, when three Iowa
Supreme Court justices lost their seats. They were among the seven
justices who unanimously found Iowa's ban on marriage equality to be
unconstitutional. Those justices were targeted by right-wing,
out-of-state forces that sought to punish them for the 2009 marriage
equality decision.
GOP gains in state legislatures
In New Hampshire, Republicans won a veto-proof majority in the
state Legislature, which complicates the political landscape in that
state. Now the Republicans have override power in case re-elected Gov.
John Lynch decides to veto a bill to repeal the state's marriage
equality law. As a result of Tuesday elections, Republicans took control
of both houses of the state legislatures in Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota
and Pennsylvania. In summary, 25 state legislatures are controlled by
Republicans, 16 by Democrats and four are divided. The rest have not
been called yet. The domination of Republicans in the state legislatures
could impact next year's redistricting -- likely meaning a more
Republican Congress.
Election of openly gay and lesbian members of Congress
David Cicilline, the openly gay mayor of
Providence, R.I., won election to the U.S. House of Representatives.
Cicilline garnered 50.6 percent of the vote to Republican candidate John
Loughlin's 44.6 percent. He will join U.S. Reps. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.),
bringing to four the number of openly gay and lesbian members of
Congress. Baldwin won with 62 percent to 31 percent against Republican
challenger Peter Theron. Frank snagged 54 percent of the vote, beating
Republican candidate Sean Bielat. Polis garnered 72 percent of the vote
to beat a challenge by Tea Party-supported candidate Stephen Bailey.
Baldwin, Frank and Polis were all re-elected to the House. Steve Pougnet,
the openly gay mayor of Palm Springs, Calif., lost his bid to unseat
Republican U.S. Rep. Mary Bono Mack. The electoral victories of openly
gay and lesbian candidates reflect that voters, from very different
parts of the country, support LGBT candidates for higher offices.
Reproductive rights, English-only and immigration ballot initiatives
This election, there were a handful of issues up for a vote that
were not directly connected to LGBT issues, but important to the Task
Force. Colorado's Amendment 62, which would have
changed the state Constitution to define a "person" as a human being
"from the moment of biological beginning" was defeated by a margin of 72
percent to 28 percent, similar to an almost identical failed measure in
2008; Arizona's Proposition 107, which would change
the state Constitution to ban affirmative action, passed by a margin of
59.56 percent to 40.44 percent; and Oklahoma's State Question 751,
which would make English the state's official language, mandating all
state business be conducted only in English, passed by a margin of 75.54
percent to 24.46 percent.
The National LGBTQ Task Force advances full freedom, justice and equality for LGBTQ people. We are building a future where everyone can be free to be their entire selves in every aspect of their lives. Today, despite all the progress we've made to end discrimination, millions of LGBTQ people face barriers in every aspect of their lives: in housing, employment, healthcare, retirement, and basic human rights. These barriers must go. That's why the Task Force is training and mobilizing millions of activists across our nation to deliver a world where you can be you. Join us!
LATEST NEWS
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Labor Department Finalizes Pro-Worker Rules on Overtime, Retirement Savings
"Democrats are delivering for working people!" declared Rep. Pramila Jayapal as the AFL-CIO noted that GOP ex-President Donald Trump "gutted the rules that required overtime pay for millions of workers."
Apr 23, 2024
Roughly 4.3 million U.S. workers will now be eligible for overtime pay under a new rule finalized Tuesday by President Joe Biden's Labor Department—in stark contrast to his Republican predecessor's rules that severely limited the number of workers who were eligible for required compensation when they worked more than 40 hours per week.
Under the new rule, employers will be required to pay overtime premiums to salaried workers who work more than standard full-time hours if they earn less than $1,128 per week, or about $58,600 per year.
Former President Donald Trump, now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, may now have to defend his 2020 rule that set the overtime pay threshold at just $35,500 per year, leaving out millions of workers.
U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) noted that the updated rule was "a major piece" of the Executive Action Agenda released by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which she chairs.
"This is a HUGE pro-worker initiative by President Biden," said Jayapal. "Democrats are delivering for working people!"
Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su, who Biden has nominated to fill the role permanently, said it is "unacceptable" that lower-paid workers "are spending more time away from their families for no additional pay," while hourly workers are eligible for overtime pay.
"This rule will restore the promise to workers that if you work more than 40 hours in a week, you should be paid more for that time," said Su. "The Biden-Harris administration is following through on our promise to raise the bar for workers who help lay the foundation for our economic prosperity."
The Labor Department posted a chart on social media showing how under Trump's policy, only workers who earn less than $688 per week are eligible for required overtime pay. The full rule is set to go into effect in January 2025.
The chart offers a "good split screen with the GOP," saidSlate reporter Mark Joseph Stern.
"It isn't just that Trump's Department of Labor fought overtime pay—it's also that Trump appointed anti-labor judges who are about to block Biden's new rule," he said.
The former Republican president's appointed judges could also block a new Federal Trade Commission rule introduced on Tuesday, which blocks companies from including noncompete clauses in workers' contracts.
"Both reforms happened because of Biden and in spite of Republicans," said HuffPost labor reporter Dave Jamieson.
Along with the overtime rule, the Labor Department announced a new policy aimed at safeguarding people's retirement savings from their financial advisers' conflicts of interest.
The finalized retirement security rule requires "trusted investment advice providers to give prudent, loyal, honest advice free from overcharges," said the department. "These fiduciaries must adhere to high standards of care and loyalty when they recommend investments and avoid recommendations that favor the investment advice providers' interests—financial or otherwise—at the retirement savers' expense."
"Under the final rule and amended exemptions, financial institutions overseeing investment advice providers must have policies and procedures to manage conflicts of interest and ensure providers follow these guidelines," the agency said.
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, said the nation's largest labor federation has "been pushing for the fiduciary and overtime rules since the Obama administration."
"It's really this simple," said Shuler. "Every worker deserves their fair share of the wealth they help create and every worker deserves to make sure their hard-earned money is secure."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular