Referendum Challenge Moving Forward
A small story in the Washington Post this morning:
That's all there is. I am told that this was the filing of papers by plaintiffs for a summary judgment. I think electronic documents had been filed already, but paper needs to be submitted as well in case there are further proceedings. Sometime this month there will be arguments and a decision should come pretty quickly, as materials have to be prepared one way or the other for the November election.
I have seen some of these petitions, and there are degrees of violations -- some are just plain no good and others are iffy. I don't want to comment in a way that influences a judge or puts pressure on them. Lawyers for one side will present evidence to convince the court that the signatures were improperly validated, and the other side will present evidence that they're good enough.
Proponents of broad new protections for transgender individuals in Montgomery County were back in court yesterday, trying to block a referendum that seeks to repeal the law passed last fall by the County Council.
Lawyers for Equality Maryland and Lambda Legal -- gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender advocacy groups -- asked a Circuit Court judge to invalidate the referendum, certified by the Board of Elections in March. Foes of the law kept it from taking effect by collecting more than 25,000 signatures to qualify for November's ballot. Citizens for Responsible Government contends that the law would give cross-dressing men access to women's locker rooms.
The contest to be played out in court concerns the validity of petition signatures. Jonathan Shurberg, an Equality Maryland attorney, said blocking the law was an act so drastic that valid signatures must meet the high standard of including full names as they appear on the state voter register.
Board of Elections attorney Kevin Karpinski said the county followed the guidelines of the state Board of Elections, which has filed a brief siding with the county. Transgender Referendum Fought
That's all there is. I am told that this was the filing of papers by plaintiffs for a summary judgment. I think electronic documents had been filed already, but paper needs to be submitted as well in case there are further proceedings. Sometime this month there will be arguments and a decision should come pretty quickly, as materials have to be prepared one way or the other for the November election.
I have seen some of these petitions, and there are degrees of violations -- some are just plain no good and others are iffy. I don't want to comment in a way that influences a judge or puts pressure on them. Lawyers for one side will present evidence to convince the court that the signatures were improperly validated, and the other side will present evidence that they're good enough.
posted by JimK at 8:46 AM
18 Comments:
Thanks for the update, Jim.
I, too, have seen some of the petitions while helping to invalidate them at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force HQ. There were many very obvious violations (this could be due to lack of "training" on the petition gatherer's part--but still a breech of petition rule resulting in invalidation--it's the law).
It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out. I am sure the judge is a law-abiding man who will rule with law and regulation.
It's also nice to see that the media are starting to realize, as well, that "almost equal" is NOT equal.
"An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".
MLK
when someone is treated as themself, that's not an injustice
Nice, AnonFreak.
I bet that is what you say about all the African-Americans who could not drink out of the same water fountain as white students during the African-American civil rights movement.
They were just being treated as second-class citizens. Nothing wrong with that (in AnonFreak's eyes).
You're just plain sad and pathetic.
You bet wrong, Derrick. Thoughts, desires and actions are legitimate grounds to discriminate between people. Their skin color isn't. What's sad is that you're so far gone that you can't understand something so obvious.
Bugs, thoughts are abstract and invisible and not grounds for discrimination. Desires of the type you're talking about are biological and natural and not grounds for discrimination. Actions, sure, people choose their actions and you can discriminate on that basis.
You got one out of three.
JimK
You missed two, Jim.
Thoughts lead to actions. If people don't want to associate with people who have bad thoughts, that's their prerogative.
You misleadingly speak about desires as if there is a definitive answer to an old controversy. Sexual desire is clearly biological. The means by which an individual chooses to express this desire seems a preference. People should be free to associate with those whose desires they feel are appropriate.
If thoughts lead to actions, then you have a case, if they don't then in this free country anybody can think anything they like. As for your comment on desires, there is no question here about who somebody chooses to associate with, on the basis of desires, if you choose your friends on the basis of their sexual desires then so be it. Denying people rights on that basis -- discrimination -- different story.
JimK
Jim writes,
I don't want to comment in a way that influences a judge or puts pressure on them.
ROTFLOL...Jim, trust me, they are not.
Talk about overestimating one's influence....but there is hope for sanity. It is being reported that an issue that 61.4% of California voters decided upon 8 years ago, will be voted on again. Though it would be satisfying to have it pass by an even larger margin, all it will take is 50%
"If thoughts lead to actions, then you have a case, if they don't then in this free country anybody can think anything they like. As for your comment on desires, there is no question here about who somebody chooses to associate with, on the basis of desires, if you choose your friends on the basis of their sexual desires then so be it. Denying people rights on that basis -- discrimination -- different story."
Jim your definition of rights basically is so expansive that it amounts to tyranny, if enforced by a government. Yes, everyone, including those with mental problems like same gender sexual attraction, has a right to think and feel what they want. But a corresponding right is for each individual to discriminate who they will associate and do business with. There is no right to be hired or served in a restaurant or get a taxi. A locality may decide that it wants these things to be available to the general public in a similar manner to building codes and zoning laws but no one has the "right" to force others to employ them or serve them food or give them rides. Everyone has the right to seek others to engage in this kind of business, that is, to the pursuit of these things. No one, however, has any right to guarantees of success in this pursuit. Freedom requires that all sides have autonomy including the right to withhold their involvement with others who they don't want to support.
"Bug"
You showed your ignorance or disdain of our abiding democratic ideals and practices when you said: "There is no right to be hired or served in a restaurant or get a taxi. A locality may decide that it wants these things to be available to the general public in a similar manner to building codes and zoning laws but no one has the "right" to force others to employ them or serve them food or give them rides."
When one engages in public business and accrues all of the concomittant benefits from doing so, including adherence to policies which are designed to create equal opportunity for all and non-discrimination on the basis of personal characteristics, one does NOT have the right to discriminate in that business(unless one is willing to forego any tax benefits or protection of laws that are associated with engaging in that business).
You indeed do have the right to select those whom you wish to associate with in your private affairs (your church, your private men's clubs, your Swingers groups, or even your ever-growing marital infidelities, etc.) so long as no public funds are provided for you to engage in your discriminatory activities.
And you further expose your true feelings and ignorance when you say such stupid comments as: "Yes, everyone, including those with mental problems like same gender sexual attraction, has a right to think and feel what they want." That remark shows, perhaps more than any of the ridiculous things you mouth-off here, how ignorant and bigoted you really are.
RT
Red Baron said "Thoughts, desires and actions are legitimate grounds to discriminate between people.".
Religion is based on thoughts and is not considered a legitimate grounds for discrimination. Desires aren't a valid basis for discrimination and neither are actions that hurt no one.
Red Baron said "Thoughts lead to actions.".
Only sometimes. Many thoughts never lead to actions. I often think about slapping bigots in the face. I never do it however.
Orin said "Talk about overestimating one's influence.".
LOL, Orin I've never seen anyone do that half as much as you, Mr. "If I could speak to a roomful of people I could convince a supermajority to vote against equal marriage". They don't come any more pompous and overblown than you.
Red Baron said "But a corresponding right is for each individual to discriminate who they will associate and do business with. There is no right to be hired or served in a restaurant or get a taxi.".
You couldn't be more obviously wrong about this, I'm surprised you would knowingly make such an idiotic statement. You have a right to discriminate in your private relationships but not your business ones. You can't have a "Whites only" restaurant or taxi and in many places you can't have a "heteros only" business either. If you make money off of the public generally speaking your obligated to serve every law abiding member of it.
Jim, in this thread:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=9797121&postID=8529129348522183909
Red baron/anony/food freak/cujo/bugeyed, etc. promised he would only post under "rolling thunder" after you asked him to stick to one pseudonym. How about it?
When the power went out yesterday, I sat around reading old Alumni magazines, and discovered that Maryland's own anti-lgbt Alex Mooney is a fellow grad of Dartmouth, along with Dinesh (and myself). Mooney is part of an arch-conservative group of alumni who have taken over the Association of Alumni, and are attempting to gain a majority on the Board of Trustees of Dartmouth College. The Executive Committee of the AoA (of which Mooney is a member) is suing the College to allow them to take over (looking for some activists judges to interfere in the operations of a private organization, I would guess).
Interestingly, Mooney also has testified on behalf of a proposal in the New Hampshire state assembly to allow the state oversight in changes in Dartmouth's Charter (again, government oversight of the strictly private operations of a not-for-profit academic corporation).
Dinesh and Alex: I'm so proud. Go Green!
Well, here’s a little peace of news to brighten folks’ day… and (gasp!) it even talks about public accommodations!:
Press Release
New York State Assembly Passes Bill Banning Transgender Discrimination
Albany, New York, June 3, 2008 – Today the New York State Assembly voted 102-33 to amend the state's human rights law to include anti-discrimination protections based upon gender identity and expression. The bill (A.6584a), known as the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) bans discrimination against transgender people in housing, employment, credit, public accommodations, and other areas of everyday life.
"The Assembly has solidly demonstrated once again that it is the leader on civil rights and providing equality for our community where it didn't exist before in New York," said Empire State Pride Agenda Executive Director Alan Van Capelle. "We thank Assembly member Richard Gottfried for his sponsorship and steadfast support of this bill. We also thank Speaker Silver and the Assembly Majority, the 74 cosponsors and the 102 Assembly members who passed this bill and understand the importance of providing an umbrella of anti-discrimination protection for all New Yorkers."
First introduced in 2003, GENDA has a record 74 co-sponsors this year in the Assembly, up from 69 last year. The Pride Agenda, the over 200 organizational members of the GENDA Coalition and the LGBT community have been working closely with Assembly member Gottfried and other Assembly supporters to build the momentum for passage that resulted in today's vote.
"Transgender New Yorkers are in constant fear that they will lose their jobs, get kicked out of their home, or simply be denied service when they go into a restaurant. It goes without saying that these members of our community should be able to go about the business of living their lives openly and without fear," said Pride Agenda Executive Director Alan Van Capelle.
Transgender activist Melissa Sklarz of New York City said about today's vote, "Thank you New York State Assembly for standing up to say 'no' to discrimination against transgender New Yorkers. I can think of years of personal struggle in the job market and workplace without any legal protection and am now hopeful that there is a real chance that the next generation of transgender New Yorkers will not face these same difficulties."
In terms of the Senate, the Pride Agenda's Van Capelle said, "We now look to the New York State Senate to close this gaping hole in the New York State Human Rights Law. Governor Paterson has already said that he will sign this bill into law once the Senate acts."
"My message to the Senate Majority is this: It's now time to do what 78 percent of New York voters believe is the right thing to do and end this discrimination once and for all this year. Thirteen other states already have laws providing protections based upon gender identity and expression, along with 96 cities and counties. We also know that the private sector is far ahead of government with 153 Fortune 500 companies, including 26 based here in New York having policies in place that protect their transgender employees. Clearly, our state is lagging behind."
In the Senate, GENDA (S.3753a) is sponsored by Senator Tom Duane and has 17 cosponsors, up from 14 last year. While none of the cosponsors are members of the Republican Majority, the Pride Agenda's legislative scorecard shows GENDA to have the support of 27 Senators, including three Republicans.
- - - - - - -
Well, it seems like somebody has a lot more signs to print up!
Peace,
Cynthia
Yay for New York!
I think a lot of LGB people don't realize the serious risks to T people in employment etc. Many gay teachers are out to faculty, many are out in other employment, many "pass" as straight. Even in the military, LGB people are tolerated as long as they don't make too much noise.
Trans people don't have that option. You can't transition secretly.
We have a long way to go even within our own community to educate people. We're looking at ways to make youth more conscious of this "minority within a minority."
rrjr
Post a Comment
<< Home