Massachusetts Question 3, Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Veto Referendum (2018)
- General election: Nov. 6
- Voter registration deadline: Oct. 17
- Early voting: Oct. 22 - Nov. 2
- Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6
- Online registration: Yes
- Same-day registration: No
- Voter ID: No ID required generally
- Poll times: 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Massachusetts Question 3 | |
---|---|
Election date November 6, 2018 | |
Topic LGBT issues | |
Status Approved | |
Type Referendum | Origin Citizens |
Massachusetts Question 3, Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Veto Referendum, was on the ballot in Massachusetts as a veto referendum on November 6, 2018. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported upholding Senate Bill 2407, a bill to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity in public places—such as hotels, restaurants, and stores. |
A "no" vote opposed SB 2407 and repealed the law designed to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity in public places—such as hotels, restaurants, and stores. |
Election results
Massachusetts Question 3 |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
1,806,742 | 67.82% | |||
No | 857,401 | 32.18% |
Overview
A "yes" vote on Question 3 supported upholding a law that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in public places. The law requires access to areas segregated based on gender—such as bathrooms and locker rooms—to be allowed according to an individual's self-identified gender identity. The law, which went into effect in October 2016, includes some exceptions. A "no" vote on this measure opposed this law and supported overturning it. This measure was put on the ballot through a signature petition drive by opponents of the 2016 law—SB 2407—which means the sponsors of the signature petition drive responsible for the measure advocated for a "no" vote. Click here to read a list provided by the attorney general of places considered public accommodations for which the provisions of the measure would apply.[1]
The penalty for each violation of the law's prohibition against discrimination in public places, including discrimination based on gender identity under SB 2407, was set to range from up to $100 and/or up to 30 days in prison to $2,500 and/or up to a year in prison depending on the violation. Moreover, the law authorized the assessment of a civil penalty of between $10,000 and $50,000 for each violation depending on prior violations.[1]
Status of gender identity policy in Massachusetts
The law this measure concerns went into effect in October 2016. Massachusetts law also prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in the areas of housing, employment, credit, and post-secondary education according to a bill approved in 2011, and the outcome of this veto referendum measure did not affect the 2011 bill.[2]
Status of gender identity policy in the United States
There is no federal law that explicitly prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, although it has been successfully argued in some court cases that prohibitions against discrimination based on sex apply in cases concerning gender identity. In 2014, under President Obama's administration, then Attorney General Eric Holder stated that the federal department of justice would begin interpreting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to apply to transgender people. In October 2017, however, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed Holder's ruling and instructed federal prosecutors to not apply the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in cases of transgender people. In July 2017, President Trump issued a directive banning transgender people from serving in the military. Following federal court rulings against the policy, however, the department of justice announced it would not implement the policy but planned to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court at a later date.[3][4][5][6]
Massachusetts is one of nineteen states, along with Washington D.C., that had implemented anti-discrimination laws regarding gender identity as of January 2018. Six other states had policies prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in state employment. Minnesota was the first state to pass a law prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in 1993. The Massachusetts veto referendum concerns public accommodations; six states besides Massachusetts have provisions prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in the area of public accommodations. Of the 25 states without laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity, four are under divided government, and the other 21 are Republican trifectas. Of the 19 states with laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in areas besides state employment, nine are under divided government, eight are Democratic trifectas, and two are Republican trifectas.[7]
The issue of anti-discrimination laws regarding gender identity has been at the center of conflicts within multiple state governments, from New Hampshire in 2009 to North Carolina in 2016 and 2017. [8]
Campaigns for and against the measure One committee, Freedom for All Massachusetts, Inc., was registered to support a "yes" vote on Question 3. Freedom for All Massachusetts opposed the intention of the veto referendum petition sponsors. The committee raised $6.08 million in total, including $887,563 in-kind contributions. The largest donor was the Freedom Massachusetts Education Fund, which gave $507,200.[9]
Two committees, Keep MA Safe and No to 3, were registered to sponsor the referendum petition effort and to support a "no" vote on Question 3. The committees raised $663,422, including $198,417 in in-kind services. The largest donor was the Massachusetts Family Institute which gave $122,511 in in-kind services.[10]
Measure design
- Click here to read the full text of the measure
Question 3 was designed to uphold or reject a bill passed by the state legislature in July 2016—Senate Bill 2407 (SB 2407)—which prohibited discrimination based on gender identity in public businesses or other places open to the general public, such as hotels, stores, restaurants, theaters, sports stadiums, and hospitals. Opponents of the law placed this veto referendum on the ballot through a signature petition drive in an effort to have SB 2407 repealed by voters. SB 2407 added gender identity to a list of prohibited reasons for discrimination that included race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, disability, and ancestry.[1]
The penalty for each violation of the law's prohibition against discrimination in public places, including discrimination based on gender identity under SB 2407, was set to range from up to $100 and/or up to 30 days in prison to $2,500 and/or up to a year in prison depending on the violation. Moreover, the law authorized the assessment of a civil penalty of between $10,000 and $50,000 for each violation depending on prior violations.[1]
Gender identity is defined by state law as the gender-related identity, appearance, or behavior "sincerely held as part of a person's core identity" regardless of "whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth." SB 2407 requires any place of public accommodation that has separate areas for males and females, including restrooms, to allow access to and full use of those areas consistent with a person’s gender identity, rather than their physiological or assigned sex at birth. SB 2407 also prohibits the owner or manager of a place of public accommodation from using advertising or signage that discriminates on the basis of gender identity. The law requires the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination to make rules and regulations for the enforcement of the law and directs the attorney general to provide rules and procedures for cases in which a certain gender identity is claimed for inappropriate reasons. The law makes exceptions for certain fitness and health facilities open only to a specific gender and that do not receive public funding, any program or entity authorized by federal law to provide services exclusively to a specific gender, and establishments that provide lodging only to people of a certain gender.[1]
In 2011, the state legislature passed a separate law prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in housing, employment, credit, and higher education. The veto referendum regarding SB 2407 would not affect that 2011 law.[2][11]
SB 2407 went into effect fully on October 1, 2016. While Massachusetts has a process to suspend laws through a veto referendum petition, petitioners collected enough signatures to put the referendum on the ballot, but not enough to suspend SB 2407 until the election.[1]
Text of measure
Ballot question
The ballot question was as follows:[12]
“ | Do you approve of a law summarized below, which was approved by the House of Representatives and the Senate on July 7, 2016?[13] | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary of Question 3 was as follows:[12]
“ |
This law adds gender identity to the list of prohibited grounds for discrimination in places of public accommodation, resort, or amusement. Such grounds also include race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, disability, and ancestry. A “place of public accommodation, resort or amusement” is defined in existing law as any place that is open to and accepts or solicits the patronage of the general public, such as hotels, stores, restaurants, theaters, sports facilities, and hospitals. “Gender identity” is defined as a person’s sincerely held gender-related identity, appearance, or behavior, whether or not it is different from that traditionally associated with the person’s physiology or assigned sex at birth. This law prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in a person’s admission to or treatment in any place of public accommodation. The law requires any such place that has separate areas for males and females (such as restrooms) to allow access to and full use of those areas consistent with a person’s gender identity. The law also prohibits the owner or manager of a place of public accommodation from using advertising or signage that discriminates on the basis of gender identity. This law directs the state Commission Against Discrimination to adopt rules or policies and make recommendations to carry out this law. The law also directs the state Attorney General to issue regulations or guidance on referring for legal action any person who asserts gender identity for an improper purpose. The provisions of this law governing access to places of public accommodation are effective as of October 1, 2016. The remaining provisions are effective as of July 8, 2016. A YES VOTE would keep in place the current law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity in places of public accommodation. A NO VOTE would repeal this provision of the public accommodation law.[13] |
” |
Full text
The full text for Senate Bill 2407, which was enacted into law as Chapter 134, is below:[1]
Senate Bill 2407 Whereas, the deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat its purpose, which is to provide forthwith for protection from discrimination on the basis of gender identity, therefore it is hereby declared to be an emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public convenience. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows: SECTION 1. Section 92A of chapter 272 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2014 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after the word “sex”, in line 9, the following words:- , gender identity. SECTION 2. The second paragraph of said section 92A of said chapter 272, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by adding the following sentence:- An owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement that lawfully segregates or separates access to such place of public accommodation, or a portion of such place of public accommodation, based on a person’s sex shall grant all persons admission to, and the full enjoyment of, such place of public accommodation or portion thereof consistent with the person’s gender identity. SECTION 3. Section 98 of said chapter 272, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the word “sex”, in line 3, the following words:- , gender identity. SECTION 4. (a) The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination shall adopt, promulgate, amend and rescind rules and regulations or formulate policies and make recommendations to effectuate the purposes of this act, including when and how gender identity, as defined in clause Fifty-ninth of section 7 of chapter 4 of the General Laws, may be evidenced. (b) The attorney general’s office shall issue regulations or guidance for referring to appropriate law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority for legal action any person whose assertion of a gender identity is for an improper purpose, as provided in clause Fifty-ninth of section 7 of chapter 4. (c) The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and the attorney general’s office shall report such rules, regulations, policies, recommendations or guidance to the clerks of the house of representatives and the senate not later than September 1, 2016. SECTION 5. Sections 2 and 3 shall take effect on October 1, 2016. |
Readability score
- See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The secretary of the commonwealth[14] wrote the ballot language for this measure.
In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here. |
Support for "yes" vote
Note: For this referendum, individuals who supported a "yes" vote were those who favor upholding SB 2407.
Freedom For All Massachusetts led the campaign for a "yes" vote.[15]
Supporters for "yes" vote
Officials
Organizations
Businesses and labor unions
Sports organizations and teams
Local public officials
Law enforcement organizations and officials
Colleges
Religious organizations and churches
|
Arguments
Freedom Massachusetts argued that Senate Bill 2407 provided protections for transgender people that they were not offered before and that such protections are necessary due to the percentage of transgender people in Massachusetts who had previously reported experiencing harassment in places of public accommodation.[18]
Freedom Massachusetts: Mother of Two Transgender Children Shares Story of Anti-LGBT Discrimination in MA |
Kasey Suffredini, president of strategy at Freedom for All Americans said, "It’s a fight of tremendous local significance because it impacts the very basic ability of transgender people to just about their daily lives in public. It also has national significance because it is the first statewide vote on transgender non-discrimination protections in our country’s history, and the anti-transgender activist who put this question on the ballot have said if they are successful in Massachusetts, they will work to roll back LGBT protections across the country."[19]
Alexandra Chandler (D), a trasngender candidate for Congress in Massachusetts' third district, said, "I’m running for Congress to be a voice for the trans kids out there. I want our country to be a place where you can live, and learn, and where you can be proud of whoever you are. My right to go to a grocery store [safely] ... is on the ballot here, too. I am in that block with the vulnerable."[20]
Phil Sherwood, campaign manager of Freedom For All Massachusetts made the following arguments:[21]
“ |
MA is seen as a leader nationally on equal rights and standing up for the safety and dignity of all residents. Whether it’s Marriage Equality, bullying or standing up to outside hate groups – MA has earned the reputation on being on the right side of many important issues. If this anti-discrimination law is stripped here in MA outside groups will much more aggressive taking their agenda to other states in an effort to target minority groups for exclusion. [...] Many people though do not completely understand what it means to be transgender or know why these equal protection laws were needed in the first place. This creates a scenario where outside special interest groups can push fear-based misinformation campaigns under the guise of protecting the public from predators. Those seeking to repeal this antidiscrimination law seek to single out people who are different and push an agenda that undermines fairness. Their actions foster an environment where kids in particular are more likely to be harassed for being different.[13] |
” |
Sherwood also argued that repealing the transgender anti-discrimination law would hurt business:[22]
“ |
Boston is a great option for Amazon to locate its HQ2, in large part, because our state laws ensure that industry giants like Amazon are able to attract talented employees of all backgrounds who know they are fully protected under the law here. As Massachusetts voters face a dangerous and anti-transgender ballot question this November, it is important to know what impact that vote will have on a decision as monumental as this one. Let’s work together to make Boston as desirable a location as possible for all business.[13] |
” |
The Boston Bar Association stated the following:[23]
“ |
By passing An Act Relative to Transgender Antidiscrimination [the bill decided by this veto referendum], Massachusetts ensured that necessary antidiscrimination protections extended to places like restaurants and malls and allows people to use the restroom or locker room that matches their gender identity.[13] |
” |
Tim Foley, assistant division director at 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, said the following in a statement to Ballotpedia:[24]
“ |
As the most diverse labor union in the state and the country, the leadership and members of 1199SEIU vehemently oppose discrimination of any type – whether based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender. The current law, wisely passed by the state legislature, protects individuals and families all across Massachusetts. The law is working and ensuring transgender people are not harassed or discriminated against in public places. While the initial intent of the ballot question was to roll back these protections, voters have an opportunity this November to send a strong message that discrimination of any kind has no place in Massachusetts.[13] |
” |
The Mayors Against LGBT Discrimination Coalition, including more than 300 mayors and town managers across the country, chaired by mayors Muriel Bowser of the District of Columbia, Jenny Durkan of Seattle, Sly James of Kansas City, Mo., and Jim Kenney of Philadelphia, made the following statement:[25]
“ |
The Mayors Against LGBT Discrimination coalition is committed to ensuring basic protections so that all people are treated fairly, no matter who they are or where they live. As mayors, we uniquely know the importance of moving forward to strengthen communities and provide a welcoming, safe environment for all neighbors and businesses, and we oppose any ballot measure that would take the state backwards by removing critical protections.[13] |
” |
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted by Susan Donnelly of Freedom for All Massachusetts in favor of a "yes" vote on Question 3:[12]
“ |
Vote YES to keep in place current law that:
Lets transgender people go about their daily lives, including in restrooms, which we all need to use. We all value safety and privacy, including transgender people. This law has been in place for two years with no increase in public safety incidents. Harassing people remains illegal, and those who commit crimes are still prosecuted. That’s why experts who support the law include:
Transgender people are our neighbors, coworkers, and friends who contribute to our thriving communities. A YES vote upholds basic values of fairness, dignity, and respect for all.[13] |
” |
Support for "no" vote
Note: For this referendum, individuals who supported a "no" vote were those who favor repealing SB 2407. These individuals collected signatures and placed the measure on the ballot.
Keep MA Safe led the campaign for a "no" vote on this veto referendum and backed the signature petition effort that qualified the veto referendum for the ballot.[26]
Supporters for "no" vote
- Massachusetts Family Institute[27]
Arguments
Keep MA Safe argued that Senate Bill 2407 should be repealed because it could negatively impact the safety of women and children in public areas.[28]
Keep MA Safe made the following argument:[29]
“ |
What the citizens of Massachusetts weren’t told was that there were only a handful of allegations of such denial of access to public accommodations and that those claims were already covered under state law. What changed on October first of last year was access to bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and changing facilities. It is now a potential criminal civil rights violation for a woman or young girl to object when a biological male undresses next to her in a public facility. This is not progress for our Commonwealth. We should not require women to sacrifice their privacy for the sake of sexual charades. Unfortunately, this is exactly what we’ve seen happen in the last year. In December, a woman was photographed by a man lurking in the ladies’ room of a T.J. Maxx in Plainville, MA. When she asked employees for help, they seemed torn regarding what to do. Do they call the police, and risk being brought up on hate crimes charges? Or do they protect themselves and their employer by looking the other way and side with the man over the frightened woman? The law is now weighted to benefit those who would violate private spaces. How many cases go unreported?[13] |
” |
Kaeley Triller Haver, director of communications for the Just Want Privacy Campaign, wrote the following in an article about transgender individuals and bathroom bills:[30]
“ |
Let me be clear: I am not saying that transgender people are predators. Not by a long shot. What I am saying is that there are countless deviant men in this world who will pretend to be transgender as a means of gaining access to the people they want to exploit, namely women and children. It already happens. Just Google Jason Pomares, Norwood Smith Burnes, or Taylor Buehler, for starters. While I feel a deep sense of empathy for what must be a very difficult situation for transgender people, at the beginning and end of the day, it is nothing short of negligent to instate policies that elevate the emotional comfort of a relative few over the physical safety of a large group of vulnerable people.[13] |
” |
Representative Jim Lyons (R) made the following argument:[31]
“ |
We think that's simply inappropriate and something that we should not be promoting here in Massachusetts. In addition, the legislation that was approved basically allows five-year-olds to determine whether they're boys or girls. The focus, though, of our legislation [legislation to roll back provisions of the bill targeted by this veto referendum] is to get back to a normalcy where we recognize the difference between male and female. We really think that ought to remain the norm as opposed to what this legislation [the bill targeted by this veto referendum] does which basically [turns] gender upside down.[13] |
” |
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted by Debby Dugan of Keep MA Safe in support of a "no" vote on Question 3:[12]
“ |
Voting NO repeals the “Bathroom Bill” law and prevents men from entering women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, and intimate spaces. The law violates the privacy and safety of women by allowing any man identifying as a woman, including convicted sex offenders, to share women’s facilities. Under the law, any attempt to block a man from entering the women’s locker room, dressing room, or bathroom could result in individual penalties of up to $50,000 and a year in prison. Businesses are also affected, like a female spa owner who faced a discrimination claim for declining to wax the genitals of a man identifying as a woman. No law should make women and girls feel unsafe and exploit their privacy and security. The MA Legislature passed a law that goes too far, even refusing to include a provision to exclude convicted sex offenders. A NO vote protects women’s privacy and safety.[13] |
” |
Campaign advertisements
The following video was released by Keep MA Safe:[32]
|
Campaign finance
Total campaign contributions: | |
Support for "yes" | $6,084,831.59 |
Support for "no" | $663,421.76 |
One committee, Freedom for All Massachusetts, Inc., was registered to support a "yes" vote on Question 3. Freedom for All Massachusetts opposed the intention of the veto referendum petition sponsors. The committee raised $6.08 million in total, including $887,563 in-kind contributions. The largest donor was the Freedom Massachusetts Education Fund, which gave $507,200.[9]
Two committees, Keep MA Safe and No to 3, were registered to sponsor the referendum petition effort and to support a "no" vote on Question 3. The committees raised $663,422, including $198,417 in in-kind services. The largest donor was the Massachusetts Family Institute which gave $122,511 in in-kind services.[10]
Support for a "yes" vote
|
|
Donors
The following were the top donors who contributed to the Freedom Massachusetts committee:
Donor | Cash | In-kind | Total |
---|---|---|---|
Freedom Massachusetts Education Fund | $507,200.12 | $0.00 | $507,200.12 |
American Civil Liberties Union, Inc. | $400,000.00 | $104,143.82 | $504,143.82 |
Human Rights Campaign | $250,000.00 | $75,930.87 | $325,930.87 |
Freedom for All Americans | $83,269.69 | $208,603.92 | $291,873.61 |
Support for a "no" vote
|
|
Donors
The following were the top donors who contributed to the opposition campaign:
Donor | Cash | In-kind | Total |
---|---|---|---|
Massachusetts Family Institute | $0.00 | $122,510.82 | $122,510.82 |
Carol Breuer | $110,000.00 | $0.00 | $110,000.00 |
Raymond Ruddy | $100,000.00 | $0.00 | $100,000.00 |
Renew Massachusetts Coaltion | $0.00 | $43,278.15 | $43,278.15 |
Walter Weld | $35,000.00 | $0.00 | $35,000.00 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Polls
2018
Whether to keep or repeal law that allows transgender people to use public facilities consistent with their gender identity | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Poll | Support keeping law | Support repealing law | Undecided/refused | Margin of error | Sample size | ||||||||||||||
Boston Globe/UMass Lowell poll 10/1/18 - 10/7/18 | 73.0% | 21.0% | 6.0% | +/-4.4 | 791 | ||||||||||||||
WBUR News/MassInc Polling Group poll 9/17/18 - 9/21/18 | 71.0% | 21.0% | 8.0% | +/-4.4 | 506 | ||||||||||||||
Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll 9/13/18 - 9/17/18 | 73% | 17% | 9% | +/-4.4 | 500 | ||||||||||||||
MassINC Polling Group 5/22/18 - 5/26/18 | 52% | 38% | 11% | +/-4.4 | 501 | ||||||||||||||
AVERAGES | 67.25% | 24.25% | 8.5% | +/-4.4 | 574.5 | ||||||||||||||
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org. |
- A Boston Globe/UMass Lowell poll conducted October 1-7, 2018, found that 73 percent of respondents said they would vote yes on the measure, 21 percent would vote no, and 6 percent were undecided.
- A WBUR News/MassInc Polling Group poll conducted September 17-21, 2018, found that 71 percent of respondents would vote yes on Question 3 and 21 percent would vote no. Ten percent of respondents remained undecided.
- A poll conducted by Suffolk University and the Boston Globe from September 13-17, 2018, found that 73 percent of respondents supported keeping the law while 17 percent supported repealing the law. Nine percent were undecided.
- A May 2018 poll, commissioned by WBUR News and conducted by Mass INC Polling Group, asked 501 registered Massachusetts voters, "There may be a measure on the 2018 ballot that would repeal the law which allowed transgender people to use public restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identities, regardless of their sex at birth. Would you support or oppose repealing this law? PROBE: And do you strongly (support/oppose) this idea, or just somewhat?" Thirty-eight percent of voters polled supported repealing the law that allowed transgender people to use bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity regardless of their sex at birth. Fifty-two percent of voters polled supported allowing transgender people to continue using the restrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity.[33]
2016
Senate Bill 2407 | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Poll | Support | Oppose | Undecided | Refused | Margin of error | Sample size | |||||||||||||
Suffolk University/Boston Globe 5/2/16 - 5/5/16 | 53.2% | 30.0% | 15.0% | 1.8% | +/-4.4 | 500 | |||||||||||||
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org. |
- In a May 2016 Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll, voters were asked the following question about Senate Bill 2407:[34]
“ |
Currently, there are public accommodations bills before the Massachusetts legislature that protect the civil rights of transgender people, including their right to use the restroom that conforms to their gender identity. Do you support or oppose passage of such a bill?[13] |
” |
Media editorials
- See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements
Support
- The Daily Free Press said: "Repealing the existing law would only make everyday life more dangerous for people who already face more than their fair share of discrimination. If our state doesn’t stand by minority groups, it reflects poorly on all of us."[35]
- The Telegram & Gazette said: "Transgender rights that lift the fear of discrimination from a group of people have not been an issue since being adopted in Massachusetts two years ago. Opponents who play up fears of men using a pretext to harass and attack women in restrooms or locker rooms ignore that such behavior is already against the law."[36]
Opposition
- The New Boston Post wrote: "Voting No on 3 simply means that only women and girls who are biologically female should be allowed to use women’s public facilities. We want to avoid the possibility that our loved ones might be exposed to a biological man who exploits this radical law, especially a man who is a convicted sex offender, which is currently allowed by the law. The safety threat is real. This law sets up a look-but-don’t-touch scenario, making it impossible for women and girls to speak up effectively for themselves until after they have been assaulted or otherwise harmed."[37]
Background
Status of gender identity anti-discrimination laws in Massachusetts
Senate Bill 2407 went into effect on October 1, 2016, because opponents who gathered signatures for this veto referendum effort collected enough signatures to put the law before voters, but not enough to suspend the law until the election. Going into the election, there were various Massachusetts laws and policies prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity besides the provisions regarding public accommodations provided by Senate Bill 2407 that would be upheld by the approval of this measure.[2][38]
- In 2011, the state legislature passed House Bill 3810 former Gov. Deval Patrick signed it into law on November 23, 2011. The law prohibited discrimination based on gender identity regarding housing, employment, credit, and post-secondary education. The law went into effect on July 1, 2012.[39][40]
- On February 7, 2011, former Gov. Deval Patrick issued executive order No. 526 prohibiting discrimination based on the following characteristics: "race, color, age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, religion, creed, ancestry, national origin, disability, veteran's status (including Vietnam-era veterans), or background."[41]
- On June 16, 2005, a regulation was passed by the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security establishing gender bias as grounds for qualifying a crime as a hate crime and requiring the reporting provisions for hate crimes in state law to apply.[42]
Lawsuit
In October 2016, a national group called the Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit challenging Senate Bill 2407 on behalf of four Massachusetts churches. Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that under the anti-discrimination law, churches might be considered places of public accommodation, which could threaten the rights of pastors and church officials to act according to their faith. Plaintiffs requested that judges suspend the effects of the law while the lawsuit went forward.[43] They voluntarily withdrew their case in December 2016 when the Massachusetts attorney general's office removed houses of worship as an example of a public accommodation that would be subject to Senate Bill 2407's stipulations. Steve O'Ban, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, said the following regarding the withdrawal: "The government can’t encroach on the internal, religious practices of a church. The language revisions that our lawsuit prompted should ensure that doesn’t happen."[44] The attorney general's office did indicate that places of worship could still be considered a public accommodation when hosting a "public, secular function."[45][46]
Attorney general public accommodation guidelines
Below is the current definition of public accommodation and list of the examples of entities that would be subject to anti-discrimination laws provided by the Massachusetts attorney general's office:[47]
|
The attorney general also released a memo providing guidelines for the implementation of the bill targeted by this veto referendum. According to the attorney general, the document was designed to "to help businesses and other places of public accommodation comply with the law" and outlined behavior that is required, forbidden, and not forbidden. This memo is available here.[48]
Status of gender identity anti-discrimination laws in the United States
Employment and housing at the federal level
There is no federal law that explicitly prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, although it has been successfully argued that prohibitions against discrimination based on sex apply in cases of gender identity. As of 2018, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), however, "interprets and enforces Title VII's [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] prohibition of sex discrimination as forbidding any employment discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation." Likewise, as of 2018, the policy of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is that the federal Fair Housing Act, which does not explicitly mention sexual orientation or gender identity, prohibits discrimination in cases where it is "based on non-conformity with gender stereotypes."[49][50]
Department of justice policy
In 2014 under President Obama's administration, then Attorney General Eric Holder stated that the federal department of justice would also begin interpreting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to apply to transgender people. In October 2017, however, Attorney General Jeff Session reversed Holder's ruling and stated that federal prosecutors would take the following position: "Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination encompasses discrimination between men and women but does not encompass discrimination based on gender identity per se, including transgender status." In July 2017, President Trump issued a directive banning transgender people from serving in the military. Following federal court rulings against the policy, however, the department of justice announced that it would delay appealing the rulings to the Supreme Court until an expected study on the issue was released by the Department of Defense.[3][4][5][6]
State laws
Massachusetts is one of nineteen states, along with Washington D.C., that have implemented anti-discrimination laws regarding gender identity as of January 2018. Six other states have policies prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in state employment. Different state laws apply to separate, specific areas, such as employment, labor and the workplace, employment by public agencies, public accommodations, housing, education, credit, or some combination of these. This measure concerned public accommodations; six states besides Massachusetts had provisions prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in the area of public accommodations, as of November 6, 2018. These states were Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Oregon.[7][51][52]
Of the 25 states without laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity, four are under divided government, and the other 21 are Republican trifectas. Of the 19 states with laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in areas besides state employment, nine are under divided government, eight are Democratic trifectas, and two are Republican trifectas. Of the six states with laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity only in the area of state employment, three are Republican trifectas and three are under divided government.
Hover over each state in the map below to see details about laws and policies in that state and the state's trifecta status.
States with gender identity anti-discrimination laws and policies (click [show] to expand) |
---|
|
Reports and analyses
- Note: The inclusion of a report, white page, or study concerning a ballot measure in this article does not indicate that Ballotpedia agrees with the conclusions of that study or that Ballotpedia necessarily considers the study to have a sound methodology, accurate conclusions, or a neutral basis. To read a full explanation of Ballotpedia's policy on the inclusion of reports and analyses, please click here. If you would like to submit a study for inclusion on any ballot measure page, please email it as well as information about the Ballotpedia article to which it applies to editor@ballotedia.org.
"U.S. Transgender Survey: Massachusetts State Report"
The U.S. Transgender Survey (USTS) of 2015 was conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality in 2015 and released in October 2017. Out of 27,715 respondents nationwide, 1,195 reported being Massachusetts residents.
Key findings related to public accommodations and restrooms can be expanded here | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
The full report can be read here.
"Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Laws in Public Accommodations: a Review of Evidence Regarding Safety and Privacy in Public Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Changing Rooms"
Researchers from The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law and the Department of Public Policy and Political Science at Mills College published a study in Sexuality Research and Social Policy which found that whether or not a locality has laws related to public accommodations for transgender people has no effect on criminal incidents in restrooms, locker rooms, or other public spaces.[53]
Lead author Amira Hasenbush said, "Opponents of public accommodations laws that include gender identity protections often claim that the laws leave women and children vulnerable to attack in public restrooms. But this study provides evidence that these incidents are rare and unrelated to the laws.”[53]
The abstract of the report can be expanded here. | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
The full report can be read here.
Yvette Ollada, a consultant for opposition committee Keep MA Safe, said that the researchers shared the report with support committee Freedom For All Massachusetts before it was publicly available and denied the same access to Keep MA Safe. Ollada said there was "an obvious conflict of interest on the part of the researchers and publishers... This speaks to the bias of the researchers and publishers at UCLA, that they would withhold the study from one political campaign and share it with another."[54]
Rachel Dowd, a spokesperson for the Williams Institute, said "there was no conflict of interest in this study. The Williams Institute is an independent academic research institution. We never alter the methodology or conclusions of a study to serve the interests of any outside organization."[54]
"Gender-Inclusion Policies and Sexual Violence: A Longitudinal Analysis of Media Reports at Target Stores"
Paul Dirks, a researcher with Woman Means Something, published a report in January of 2018 which found that sexual incidents (particularly and most significantly, voyeurism-related offenses) increased after the publication of Target’s gender-inclusion policy in April of 2016.
The abstract of the report can be expanded here. | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
The full report can be read here.
Path to the ballot
In order to place a veto referendum on the ballot in Massachusetts, supporters must submit signatures equal to 1.5 percent of the total votes cast for governor. For this petition targeting Senate Bill 2407, supporters needed to gather at least 32,375 valid signatures by October 6, 2016. The campaign supporting the veto referendum submitted 34,231 valid signatures to the secretary of state's office. The measure was certified for the November 2018 ballot on October 11, 2016.[55]
In Massachusetts, a veto referendum petition with signatures equal to 1.5 percent of votes last cast for governor qualifies the measure for the ballot but does not suspend the targeted law. A veto referendum petition with signatures equal to 2 percent of voters last cast for governor qualifies the measure for the ballot and suspends the targeted law until and unless voters approve it the ballot. To suspend this law until the election, petitioners would have needed to collect 43,167 valid signatures. Since they collected more than 32,375 signatures but fewer than 43,167 signatures, the measure was put on the ballot, but SB 2407 went into effect on October 1, 2016.[1]
Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Paladin Petitions to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $56,056.34 was spent to collect the 32,375 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $1.73. Massachusetts Family Institute and Renew Massachusetts Coaltion provided $52,214.54 in in-kind services for signature gathering. The campaign paid Paladin Petitions $3,841.80 for signature gathering.[10]
Senate Bill 2407 in the legislature
An earlier version of Senate Bill 2407 was first passed in the Massachusetts State Senate in May 2016 as Senate Bill 735. The two chambers of the legislature, however, did not agree on various amendments passed. A conference committee was formed to resolve differences and the bill—SB 2407—was ultimately approved as reported by the committee in both the state Senate and the state House on July 7, 2016. It was signed by Gov. Charles D. Baker (R) on July 8, 2016. The roll call for SB 2407 in the Senate on July 7, 2016, was not recorded in the Senate's journal. Therefore, the votes recorded for SB 735 in May 2016 are recorded below.[56]
The vote totals for each chamber were as follows:[57][58][59]
|
|
State overview
Partisan control
This section details the partisan control of federal and state positions in Massachusetts heading into the 2018 elections.
Congressional delegation
- Following the 2016 elections, Democrats held both U.S. Senate seats in Massachusetts.
- Democrats held all 9 U.S. House seats in Massachusetts.
State executives
- As of September 2018, Democrats held 11 of 19 state executive positions, Republicans held three, and the remaining five positions were officially nonpartisan.
- The governor of Massachusetts was Republican Charlie Baker. The state held an election for governor and lieutenant governor on November 6, 2018.
State legislature
- Democrats controlled both chambers of the Massachusetts General Court. They had a 117-34 majority in the state House and a 31-7 majority in the state Senate.
Trifecta status
- Massachusetts was under divided government, meaning that the two parties shared control of the state government. Charlie Baker (R) served as governor, while Democrats controlled the state legislature.
2018 elections
- See also: Massachusetts elections, 2018
Massachusetts held elections for the following positions in 2018:
- One U.S. Senate seat
- Nine U.S. House seats
- Governor and lieutenant governor
- Seven lower state executive positions
- 40 state Senate seats
- 160 state House seats
- Municipal elections in Suffolk County
Demographics
Demographic data for Massachusetts | ||
---|---|---|
Massachusetts | U.S. | |
Total population: | 6,784,240 | 316,515,021 |
Land area (sq mi): | 7,800 | 3,531,905 |
Race and ethnicity** | ||
White: | 79.6% | 73.6% |
Black/African American: | 7.1% | 12.6% |
Asian: | 6% | 5.1% |
Native American: | 0.2% | 0.8% |
Pacific Islander: | 0% | 0.2% |
Two or more: | 2.9% | 3% |
Hispanic/Latino: | 10.6% | 17.1% |
Education | ||
High school graduation rate: | 89.8% | 86.7% |
College graduation rate: | 40.5% | 29.8% |
Income | ||
Median household income: | $68,563 | $53,889 |
Persons below poverty level: | 13.1% | 11.3% |
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Massachusetts. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. |
As of July 2016, Massachusetts' three largest cities were Boston (pop. est. 685,000), Worcester (pop. est. 186,000), and Springfield (pop. est. 155,000).[60]
State election history
This section provides an overview of federal and state elections in Massachusetts from 2000 to 2016. All data comes from the Massachusetts Secretary of State.
Historical elections
Presidential elections, 2000-2016
This chart shows the results of the presidential election in Massachusetts every year from 2000 to 2016.
Election results (President of the United States), Massachusetts 2000-2016 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | First-place candidate | First-place candidate votes (%) | Second-place candidate | Second-place candidate votes (%) | Margin of victory (%) |
2016 | Hillary Clinton | 60.0% | Donald Trump | 32.8% | 27.2% |
2012 | Barack Obama | 60.7% | Mitt Romney | 37.5% | 23.2% |
2008 | Barack Obama | 61.8% | John McCain | 36.0% | 25.8% |
2004 | John Kerry | 61.9% | George W. Bush | 36.8% | 25.1% |
2000 | Al Gore | 59.8% | George W. Bush | 32.5% | 27.3% |
U.S. Senate elections, 2000-2016
This chart shows the results of U.S. Senate races in Massachusetts from 2000 to 2016. Every state has two Senate seats, and each seat goes up for election every six years. The terms of the seats are staggered so that roughly one-third of the seats are up every two years.
Election results (U.S. Senator), Massachusetts 2000-2016 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | First-place candidate | First-place candidate votes (%) | Second-place candidate | Second-place candidate votes (%) | Margin of victory (%) |
2014 | Ed Markey | 61.9% | Brian Herr | 38.0% | 23.9% |
2013[61] | Ed Markey | 57.3% | Gabriel Gomez | 44.6% | 12.7% |
2012 | Elizabeth Warren | 53.7% | Scott Brown | 46.2% | 7.5% |
2010[61] | Scott Brown | 51.9% | Martha Coakley | 47.1% | 4.8% |
2008 | John Kerry | 65.9% | Jeffrey Beatty | 30.9% | 35.0% |
2006 | Ted Kennedy | 69.3% | Kenneth Chase | 30.5% | 38.8% |
2002 | John Kerry | Unopposed | -- | -- | Unopposed |
2000 | Ted Kennedy | 72.7% | Jack E. Robinson III | 12.9% | 59.8% |
Gubernatorial elections, 2000-2016
This chart shows the results of the four gubernatorial elections held between 2000 and 2016. Gubernatorial elections are held every four years in Massachusetts.
Election results (Governor), Massachusetts 2000-2016 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | First-place candidate | First-place candidate votes (%) | Second-place candidate | Second-place candidate votes (%) | Margin of victory (%) |
2014 | Charlie Baker | 48.4% | Martha Coakley | 46.5% | 1.9% |
2010 | Deval Patrick | 48.4% | Charlie Baker | 42.0% | 6.4% |
2006 | Deval Patrick | 55.6% | Kerry Healey | 35.3% | 20.3% |
2002 | Mitt Romney | 49.8% | Shannon P. O'Brien | 44.9% | 4.9% |
Congressional delegation, 2000-2016
This chart shows the number of Democrats and Republicans who were elected to represent Massachusetts in the U.S. House from 2000 to 2016. Elections for U.S. House seats are held every two years.
Trifectas, 1992-2017
A state government trifecta occurs when one party controls both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's office.
Massachusetts Party Control: 1992-2024
Ten years of Democratic trifectas • No Republican trifectas
Scroll left and right on the table below to view more years.
Year | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 00 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Governor | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | D | D |
Senate | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D |
House | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D |
Related measures
- Anchorage, Alaska, Proposition 1, Access to Public Bathrooms and Locker Rooms Based on Sex at Birth (April 2018)
- City of Houston Anti-Discrimination HERO Veto Referendum, Proposition 1 (2015)
- Maine Repeal of Ban Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination, Question 1 (1998)
- Oregon Revoke Governor’s Authority to Ban Sexual Orientation Discrimination, Measure 8 (1988)
See also
External links
- Chapter 134
- Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth
- Massachusetts Attorney General, "Gender Identity Guidance for Public Accommodations," September 1, 2016
- Massachusetts 2018 Information for Voters
Support for "yes" vote |
Support for "no" vote |
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Massachusetts Transgender Anti-Discrimination Veto referendum. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Massachusetts State Legislature, "Chapter 134 An Act Relative to Transgender Anti-Discrimination," accessed November 30, 2017
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Washington Blade, "Mass. ballot measure seeking to undo trans law certified for 2018", October 12, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Buzzfeed, "Justice Department Will Now Support Transgender Discrimination Claims In Litigation," December 18, 2014
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 CNN Politics, "Sessions says civil rights law doesn't protect transgender workers," October 5, 2017
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 NBC News, "Advocates celebrate 'huge win' against Trump's transgender military ban," January 2, 2018
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Fox News, "DOJ not appealing transgender military ruling, but not abandoning case," December 29, 2017
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 American Progress, "A State-by-State Examination of Nondiscrimination Laws and Policies," June 2012
- ↑ NPR, "Before North Carolina, There Were Other Contentious 'Bathroom Bill' Fights," May 28, 2017
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 OCPF, "Freedom Massachusetts," accessed October 19, 2017
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 OCPF, "Keep MA Safe," accessed January 22, 2019
- ↑ Massachusetts Legislature, "House Bill 3810," accessed October 19, 2017
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth, "2018 Information For Voters," accessed October 5, 2018
- ↑ 13.00 13.01 13.02 13.03 13.04 13.05 13.06 13.07 13.08 13.09 13.10 13.11 13.12 13.13 13.14 13.15 13.16 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ The ballot language is written by the secretary of the commonwealth, but it requires approval by the attorney general.
- ↑ Freedom Massachusetts, "Bay Staters Unite to Protect #TransLawMA from Repeal," October 12, 2016
- ↑ Boston Globe, "Charlie Baker endorses ballot question to uphold transgender rights," accessed Octoebr 13, 2018
- ↑ Our Revolution, "Ballot initiative endorsements," accessed September 11, 2018
- ↑ Freedom Massachusetts, "Why We Need this Law," accessed January 3, 2016
- ↑ PrideSource, "Massachusetts is Now Ground Zero in Fight for Trans Rights," accessed September 16, 2018
- ↑ Vice Broadly, "Congressional Hopeful Alexandra Chandler Comes Out Swinging for Trans Kids," accessed August 10, 2018
- ↑ Freedom For All Massachusetts, "Introducing Phil Sherwood as Freedom For All MA Campaign Manager," January 11, 2018
- ↑ Freedom For All Massachusetts, "Could Repealing Transgender Equality in MA Threaten Boston’s Chances of Landing Amazon HQ2?" January 18, 2018
- ↑ Boston Bar Association, "BBA Joins Freedom for All Massachusetts Coalition in Supporting Transgender Antidiscrimination Law," January 5, 2018
- ↑ Ballotpedia staff writer Josh Altic, "Email correspondence with a representative of 1199 SEIU," accessed February 27, 2018
- ↑ Boston Globe, "Mayors, while in Boston, announce support for transgender antidiscrimination law," accessed June 11, 2018
- ↑ Keep MA Safe, "Transgender Bathroom Law repeal certified for 2018 ballot," October 11, 2016
- ↑ The Enterprise, "Massachusetts Legislature approves transgender rights bill," July 7, 2016
- ↑ Keep MA Safe, "Home," accessed January 3, 2016
- ↑ Keep MA Safe, "One Year Later – Issues with Bathroom Law Unresolved," September 30, 2017
- ↑ The Federalist, "A Rape Survivor Speaks Out About Transgender Bathrooms," November 23, 2015
- ↑ OneNewsNow, "MA throws common sense out of bathroom," October 25, 2017
- ↑ YouTube: No on 3 Keep MA Safe, "No On 3, Keep MA Safe," accessed September 22, 2018
- ↑ WBUR Poll, "Survey of 501 Registered Voters in Massachusetts Field Dates: May 22-26, 2018," accessed June 1, 2018
- ↑ Boston Globe, "Voters evenly split on legal marijuana, poll shows," May 7, 2016
- ↑ The Daily Free Press, "FreeP’s endorsements on the Massachusetts ballot measures," accessed November 4, 2018
- ↑ Telegram.com, "Yes on Question 2 and Question 3 – Doing and undoing, campaign finance reform and continuing transgender protections," accessed November 4, 2018
- ↑ New Boston Post, "Choose Safety and Privacy on November 6th Vote No on Question 3," accessed November 14, 2018
- ↑ Massachusetts Government, "Massachusetts law about gender identity or expression," accessed February 6, 2018
- ↑ Massachusetts Legislature, "House Bill 3810," accessed February 7, 2018
- ↑ Boston.com, "Gender identity protections become law in Massachusetts July 1," July 1, 2012
- ↑ Massachusetts Government, "No. 526: Order regarding non-discrimination, diversity, equal opportunity, and affirmative action," February 7, 2011
- ↑ Massachusetts Government, "Executive Office of Public Safety and Security: 501 CMR 4.00," June 16, 2005
- ↑ WBUR, "4 Mass. Churches File Federal Lawsuit Over Transgender Accommodations Law," October 11, 2016
- ↑ Catholic News Agency, "Massachusetts churches claim victory in religious freedom lawsuit," December 15, 2016
- ↑ Metroweekly, "Churches drop lawsuit against Massachusetts transgender law," December 13, 2016
- ↑ Boston Magazine, "Massachusetts Pastors Are Dropping Their Transgender Bill Lawsuit," December 14, 2016
- ↑ Mass.gov, "Public Accommodation," accessed December 15, 2016
- ↑ Massachusetts Attorney General, "Gender Identity Guidance for Public Accommodations," September 1, 2016
- ↑ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "What You Should Know About EEOC and the Enforcement Protections for LGBT Workers," accessed February 9, 2018
- ↑ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, "Fair Housing LGBT Page, accessed February 9, 2018
- ↑ Human Rights Campaign, "State Maps of Laws & Policies," accessed February 7, 2018
- ↑ ACLU, "Non-Discrimination Laws: State by State Information - Map," accessed February 7, 2018
- ↑ 53.0 53.1 Metro Weekly, "Study: Transgender nondiscrimination laws do not jeopardize public safety in restrooms," accessed September 20, 2018
- ↑ 54.0 54.1 NBC News, "No link between trans-inclusive policies and bathroom safety, study finds," accessed October 10, 2018
- ↑ Washington Blade, "Mass. ballot measure seeking to undo trans law certified for 2018," October 12, 2016
- ↑ NECN, "Massachusetts Senate Passes Transgender Rights Bill," May 12, 2016
- ↑ Massachusetts Legislature, "Senate Journals, May 2016," accessed October 1, 2017
- ↑ Massachusetts Legislature, "House Journals, July 2016," accessed October 7, 2017
- ↑ There were two vacancies in the state Senate at the time of this vote.
- ↑ Massachusetts Demographics, "Massachusetts Cities by Population," accessed September 5, 2018
- ↑ 61.0 61.1 Special election
State of Massachusetts Boston (capital) | |
---|---|
Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |