#Montana Legislature

[lenbryant]

A trans victory in Montana.

[environmentalwatch]

Student Activists Win in Montana

Student activists prevail in a climate change trial that’s been pending in Montana for years. In Montana, the state constitution was revised in 1972 to protect the environment of the state. “The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations,” reads Article IX, Part IX. And it goes on to require that “the…

[amaditalks]

Abortion Is On The Ballot

In ten states, there are ballot measures or questions which will be decided in the November election which will impact the future of abortion access in those states. Here’s what you need to know.

Arizona

Arizona Proposition 139 the Right to Abortion Initiative will amend the state constitution to provide for the fundamental right to abortion that the state of Arizona may not interfere with before the point of fetal viability unless justified by a compelling state interest.

To enshrine abortion rights protection in the state constitution Vote Yes

Colorado

Colorado Amendment 79, the Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative will amend the state constitution to create the right to an abortion and authorize the use of public funds (Medicaid) to pay for abortion care.

To enshrine abortion rights protection in the state constitution Vote Yes

Florida

Florida Amendment 4, the Right to Abortion Initiative, will amend the state constitution to declare that "no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” The current constitutional provision requiring parental consent for minors' abortions will not be affected.

To enshrine abortion rights protection in the state constitution and overturn the current six week abortion ban Vote Yes

Maryland

Maryland Question 1, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment, will amend the state constitution to establish a right to reproductive freedom, defined to include "the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one's own pregnancy."

To enshrine reproductive rights protection in the state constitution Vote Yes

Missouri

Missouri Amendment 3, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative will amend the state constitution to provide the right for reproductive freedom, which is defined as "the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions," and providing that the state legislature may enact laws that regulate abortion after fetal viability.

To enshrine broad reproductive rights protection including abortion in the state constitution and overturn the current complete abortion ban Vote Yes

Montana

Montana CI-128, the Right to Abortion Initiative will create a constitutional "right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion," and allow the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except when "medically indicated to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient."

To enshrine broad reproductive rights protection including abortion in the state constitution Vote Yes

Nebraska

The Nebraska Prohibit Abortions After the First Trimester Amendment will amend the state constitution to elevate the current twelve week abortion ban law to a constitutional provision with limited exceptions for medical emergencies or in cases of rape.

To prevent the current legislative abortion ban from being enshrined in the state constitution Vote No

Nevada

Nevada Question 6, the Right to Abortion Initiative will amend the state constitution to create a constitutional right to an abortion, providing for the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except where medically indicated to "protect the life or health of the pregnant patient."

To enshrine abortion rights protection in the state constitution Vote Yes

New York

New York Proposal 1, the Equal Protection of Law Amendment will amend the state constitution to provide that people cannot be denied rights based on their "ethnicity, national origin, age, and disability" or "sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy."

To enshrine equal rights protection for pregnant people and abortion patients in the state constitution Vote Yes

South Dakota

The South Dakota Constitutional Amendment G, the Right to Abortion Initiative will amend the state constitution to protect the right to an abortion based on a trimester framework, with no restrictions permitted in the first trimester, only limited medical need restrictions permitted in the second trimester and allowing deeper restrictions in the third trimester except "when abortion is necessary, in the medical judgment of the woman's physician, to preserve the life and health of the pregnant woman."

To enshrine abortion rights protection in the state constitution and overturn the state's current full abortion ban Vote Yes

If you live in one of these ten states and abortion rights matter to you, get registered or double check your registration and make your voting plan today. Every single vote matters significantly in amendment questions.

[self-loving-vampire]

In the past three years, as bills targeting gender-affirming care for transgender youth have circulated through state legislatures, some anti-trans activists have thrown around staggering detransition rates—often claiming figures as high as 80% to 90%. These numbers have surfaced everywhere from Montana's legislative hearings on gender-affirming care bans to segments on Fox News. Chloe Cole herself has echoed these claims multiple times. Now, consider this: conservative estimates place the transgender population in the United States at over 1.5 million people. If these extremely high rates were accurate, we'd expect to see around 1.2 million detransitioners. Therapist offices would be slammed with people wanting to “change back,” hearing rooms would be packed to the brim with detransitioners, and prime time news-hour specials would feature… well, people other than Chloe Cole on a regular basis. So when Seven News releases a special stating that they are going to cover “the most controversial topic ever covered,” featuring the same faces that we have seen in multiple ads across the world, people understandingly become skeptical. If detransitioners are so rare, why is Chloe Cole’s face the one they always use? ... It's worth noting that Seven News didn't just recycle the same detransitioners commonly featured in other anti-trans specials to suggest a sweeping wave of detransitioning. The network also included images of a transgender individual who has not detransitioned, implicitly suggesting she regretted her transition.

The far right can find so few detransitioners to fuel its narrative that they are even using images of people who are not detransitioners without permission, on top of just flying the same handful of people all over the country to repeat the same bullshit in every state.

The lack of a detransition wave has even played a key role in court cases. Earlier this year, when asked to substantiate the claim that gender affirming care results in youth who will eventually regret their decisions, the state of Florida ran into a problem. They could not find a single detransitioner in the state of Florida to support the claim. As a result, the judge in the case found the facts in favor of the plaintiffs opposing Florida’s gender affirming care ban. Even in a state as populous as Florida, which has over 90,000 transgender people according to expert estimates, detransitioners appear rare.

And, as the post says, even the detransitioners that exist are generally not useful to the transphobe narrative, since they most often do so due to a lack of support and often retransition when in a better situation.

Importantly, transphobes never seem to actually care about the dignity or healthcare access of detransitioners or anything. Only about banning trans healthcare as a whole because "what if people regret it?" They are not subtle about this either. They constantly refer to trans people (detransitioned or not) as "mutilated", "damaged", "ruined", and so on.

[ladyluscinia]

If you are getting sick of the two-party system and elections running candidates you hate, or incumbents you can't rebuke without electing someone so much worse, or partisan primaries repeatedly giving you the wing of your too-large-tent party that sucks... You need to look into making voting reform a big part of your political priorities.

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) can be a big part of that!

And in 2024, RCV (also sometimes called IRV for "instant-runoff voting") is going to be on a lot of ballots, so check your state and get informed! Here's a list that I'm not sure is comprehensive, but I did research it for you to have somewhere to start:

First off, here's a post with some resources for you to do your ballot research with! I used Ballotpedia to look up this list, for example, after most of the RCV news only mentioned the 4 states with the most straightforward "vote yes for RCV" measures.

In Alaska... the state approved a RCV system in 2020 that has been a model success, but now the people with narrower support who lost their elections to broadly popular moderates introduced the Repeal Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative to repeal it. This will be on the Nov 5 ballot as an Initiative, and people need to Vote No.

In Arizona... it's possible that optional RCV and a workaround RCV ban will both be on the ballot. The ban from the Legislature doesn't stop RCV but prevents the primary system often used with it - the goal is to make RCV harder to implement. It will be on the Nov 5 ballot as Proposition 133, and people need to Vote No. The Eliminate Partisan Primaries Amendment has RCV options and has turned in its signatures, so it may be on the Nov 5 ballot - Keep Watch and Vote Yes if it appears.

In Colorado... a Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative modeled on Alaska's could bring RCV to state executive, state legislative, and congressional office elections. This may be on the Nov 5 ballot - Keep Watch and Vote Yes if it appears.

In Idaho... a Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative modeled on Alaska's will bring RCV to Congressional office, state legislature, elective state office, and county elective office elections. This will be on the Nov 5 ballot as an Initiative (1), and people need to Vote Yes.

In Missouri... the Missouri GOP has been shoehorning in deceptive Constitutional Amendments to reduce voter influence for the past several elections. This year it's a ban on RCV hidden under a useless ban on non-citizen voting (which is already illegal and the state Constitution already says "citizens" when saying who can vote). This will be on the Nov 5 ballot as the Require Citizenship to Vote and Prohibit Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment, and people need to Vote No.

In Montana... signatures have been submitted for two separate constitutional amendments, one establishing Top-Four primaries and another requiring a majority-vote system to be implemented (which would likely be a run-off or RCV system). These may be on the Nov 5 ballot - Keep Watch and Vote Yes if they appear.

In Nevada... In 2022 the first round of a Top-Five Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative was approved by 52.94%. It has to be approved again in 2024 in order to be implemented. It will bring RCV to Congressional office, statewide executive, and state legislature elections. This will be on the Nov 5 ballot as Question 3, and people need to Vote Yes.

In Oregon... a Ranked-Choice Voting for Federal and State Elections Measure will bring RCV to Presidential, Congressional office, governor, Secretary of state, attorney general, state treasurer, and commissioner of labor and industries elections. This will be on the Nov 5 ballot as a Measure, and people need to Vote Yes.

And a bonus in South Dakota... it's not RCV, but the Top-Two Primary Elections Initiative (Amendment H) would be a significant voting reform, and it will be on the Nov 5 ballot. Do some research if you live there and decide if this would help or hinder elections.

[anistarrose]

Things To Know To Get Your Vote Counted — Non-Exhaustive List

[Plain text: "Things To Know To Get Your Vote Counted — Non-Exhaustive List."]

Post date: October 28, 2024. Contains information relevant to both in-person and absentee voting.

Same Day Voter Registration:

[Same Day Voter Registration:]

If you're not already registered to vote, over 20 states (and DC) allow you to register while you're at the polling place on election day (or for early voting). If you're making a last-second decision to vote, or you thought you were registered but found out you weren't, these states give you options up until (insert time the polls close) on November 5th.

[ID: map with states shaded where same-day registration is allowed in 2024. States that allow it are: California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. (North Carolina only allows it during early voting.) End ID.] (Source: Ballotpedia)

Alaska and Rhode Island only allow same-day registering voters to vote for president/vice president. North Carolina only allows same-day registration in the early voting period. Most states require an ID and/or proof of residency to register as usual — the Ballotpedia page is a good starting point for researching requirements in your own state.

Casting a Provisional Ballot:

[Casting a Provisional Ballot:]

Provisional ballots are cast by voters who can't prove they are eligible to vote at the polling place on Election Day. For example, if you:

don't have a photo ID on you, but it's required in your state?

requested an ID ballot, but had to vote in person because you didn't receive it?

changed your name or address, but it doesn't show up in the registration information?

have your eligibility challenged by a poll worker for any reason?

Then you should ask for a provisional ballot. Moreover, federal law requires election officials to offer voters a way of tracking whether their vote was counted. Many states have online provisional ballot trackers.

Provisional ballots are used in all states except for Idaho and Minnesota. To learn more about your specific state, I recommend the National Conference of State Legislatures (archive link if the site is down).

Tracking Your Ballot and Curing Signatures:

[Tracking Your Ballot and Curing Signatures:]

In addition to provisional ballots, if you've submitted an absentee ballot, Vote.org compiles ballot trackers to ensure your ballot is received — the vast majority of states have an online version.

Moreover, if voting absentee, familiarize yourself with your state's cure period for signature errors, and be on the lookout for communication in case your signature is found not to match. 33 states require some kind of notification and ballot-curing process — which means that if your ballot is rejected, you have a chance to fix it, albeit most likely needing to appear in person.

Be Careful About Phones, Ballot Selfies, Political Clothing:

[Be Careful About Phones, Ballot Selfies, Political Clothing:]

Many states disallow taking pictures of your ballot, and even some of the states listed as "allowing" it only do so under specific conditions (ex: your face isn't in the photo, the photo isn't taken at the polling place, et cetera). Moreover, several states go even further, and ban phones at the polling place altogether. Nevada, Maryland, and Texas are the states I'm aware of, but there may be more.

Also, at least 21 states ban political apparel or buttons in polling places. Regarding both apparel and phones, it is also possible that cities could set their own rules, so you should err on the side of caution unless you know for a fact what's allowed and what isn't.

Responding to Voter Intimidation:

[Responding to Voter Intimidation:]

866-Our-Vote (866-687-8683) is a hotline you can contact, which will help connect you with lawyers and federal investigators. Their website also lists hotlines in Spanish, Arabic, and some East & Southeast Asian languages. If you witness or experience a civil rights violation, you should write down your account for future reference, contact the DOJ Civil Rights Division, and possibly also a local ACLU division.

Other Information:

[Other Information:]

Getting time off work to vote, state-by-state

State election department contact information

Vote411 (voting law information & candidate information)

If anyone notices an error or broken link in this post, please let me know so I can correct it. If anyone would like to add on information in the notes, please do so — especially if it's specific to your state! Please just include a source if possible, and present the information as accessibly as you can. Overall, good luck out there.

[yourdailyqueer]

Zooey Zephyr

Gender: Transgender woman

Sexuality: Bisexual

DOB: 29 August 1988

Ethnicity: White - American

Occupation: Politician (Democrat), activist

Note: One of the first trans woman to be elected to the Montana legislature

[wilwheaton]

Republicans across the country are waging a movement to remove and censure Democratic lawmakers simply for speaking out against the GOP — a movement that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, is saying is the next natural step after the GOP-backed attempted coup on January 6, 2021. On Wednesday, Ocasio-Cortez spoke at a rally with Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., and Tennessee state Rep. Justin Jones (D), who Republicans voted to expel from the legislature earlier this month. At the rally, she said that the January 6 attack was just one of the first steps toward the GOP's goal of total political control; rather than a large, violent coup, the GOP is implementing a slow takeover across the country. "For [Republicans], January 6 was just a dress rehearsal. Because, legally, let's not lose the plot: They were trying to block a duly elected official, in this case the president of the United States, from taking office," she said. "Legislatures across the country looked at that and [said], 'you know what? Let's try to get Representative Jones out from office. Let's try to get Rep. Zooey Zephyr in Montana out of office. Let's try to kick out the people because we cannot beat them,'" continued Ocasio-Cortez. "That is their motive."

AOC: “January 6 was a dress rehearsal” for GOP campaign to expel Democrats

[mariacallous]

Eleven abortion referendums will be in front of voters in 10 states this Election Day — the largest number of pro-choice amendments the country has ever seen during a single election cycle.

From red states like Missouri and South Dakota to blue states like New York, the abortion rights ballot measures could have a monumental impact on access throughout the country. Over 20 states have enacted abortion bans since the Supreme Court repealed federal abortion protections in 2022. Citizen-led initiatives, like most of this year’s abortion rights measures, have become the response to many of the near-total abortion bans passed by Republican-controlled state legislatures.

“This is a public health crisis that we have right now,” said Chris Melody Fields Figueredo, executive director at the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, who has worked with campaigns in all 10 states where an abortion rights amendment is in play. “The citizens, in the absence of their local elected officials, are addressing it. They’re taking power into their own hands.”

In 2022, there were six ballot measures addressing abortion, which at the time was the most in a single year. Voters protected abortion care in every state it was on the ballot during that election cycle, including in deeply Republican states like Kentucky. Ohio, a state with a long and extreme anti-abortion history, also voted to codify abortion rights into its state constitution just last year.

This year’s ballot measures range in their approaches to and levels of abortion protections. Nebraska will have two competing abortion measures, one to restrict access and one to expand. Maryland, New York and Colorado are all seeking to codify abortion protections throughout pregnancy — exceptions to the rest of the measures, which would primarily enshrine access until viability or around 24 weeks. Colorado’s Amendment 79 would also allow the use of public funds for abortion care. Missouri’s Amendment 3 would restore abortion access until viability and protect women from being prosecuted for pregnancy outcomes like miscarriage and stillbirth — a particularly progressive measure in a notoriously anti-abortion state.

If passed, most amendments would generally go into effect shortly after Election Day or at the start of 2025. Measures in Montana and South Dakota would tentatively go into effect in July 2025, while Nevada’s may not until 2026. There will be litigation in any state that passes a pro-choice measure; this is likely the time when states will bring legal challenges against successful ballot initiatives and fight to keep other abortion regulations like waiting periods and other long-standing targeted restrictions on abortion providers.

The historic number of abortion rights measures is emblematic of just how politically prominent abortion care has become. And despite conservatives who claim to want to “leave abortion to the states” since Roe fell, many did everything in their power to stop voters from weighing in on abortion rights measures.

“This is not just a reproductive freedom issue, it’s also a democracy issue,” Fields Figueredo said. “It’s about who has power and who has the determination to control what happens to their body.”

Arizona

Arizona’s Proposition 139 seeks to enshrine access to abortion up until fetal viability, or around 24 weeks, into the state constitution. If passed, the state of Arizona will not be able to limit access to abortion before viability unless the government “has a compelling reason and does so in the least restrictive way possible,” according to the measure. Under the amendment, also known as the Right to Abortion Initiative, abortions would be allowed after fetal viability only when the health or life of the pregnant person is at risk. The measure also bars future laws from punishing anyone who assists someone getting an abortion.

The state currently has a 15-week abortion ban in effect with no exceptions for rape or incest. Earlier this year, the Arizona state Supreme Court greenlit a near-total abortion ban that the Republican-controlled legislature voted to repeal.

The measure needs a simple majority to pass.

Colorado

Colorado’s pro-choice amendment would create a constitutional right to abortion care throughout pregnancy and mandate that Medicaid and private insurance companies cover abortion care. Amendment 79, also known as the Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative, would repeal a 1984 addition in the Colorado constitution which barred the use of public funds for abortion care.

The measure is distinct for two reasons. Nearly every other state where abortion is on the ballot is trying to enshrine access until fetal viability, not throughout pregnancy. Additionally, requiring that abortion care be a covered service under all health insurance plans is a step pro-choice groups have been pushing for for decades.

The state does not currently restrict abortion at any point in pregnancy, making it a refuge for those who need abortion care later in pregnancy. The measure needs at least 55% of the vote to pass.

Florida

Amendment 4 would restore abortion access until viability by adding language to the Florida constitution that states “no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” The ballot measure, also titled Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion, does not change the state’s current law that requires parental consent for a minor to obtain an abortion.

Since the Supreme Court repealed Roe v. Wade in 2022, the state passed a 15-week abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest and then a six-week ban with exceptions for rape or incest. Under the leadership of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), Florida has become one of the most extreme anti-abortion states in the country. If voters restore abortion access until viability, it would reestablish Florida as a critical safe haven in the Southeast, where most states have near-total abortion bans.

Florida has a supermajority requirement for citizen-led ballot initiatives, meaning the amendment needs to get at least 60% of the vote to pass.

Maryland

Maryland’s Question 1 guarantees the right to reproductive freedom, defined in the measure as “the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one’s own pregnancy.” The amendment specifies that the government cannot “directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”

The Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment would codify Maryland’s current law, which allows access to abortion care at any point in pregnancy and has made the state a safe haven for abortion access. It’s an exception to most other pro-choice measures on the ballot this year because it enshrines abortion access throughout pregnancy without limits. Colorado and New York are the only two other states where pro-choice groups are hoping to codify abortion access throughout pregnancy.

The amendment would pass with a simple majority.

Missouri

Amendment 3 would codify the right to reproductive freedom, including abortion access until fetal viability, into the Missouri constitution. The measure would protect the right to make decisions about other reproductive health issues including birth control, prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, miscarriage care and “respectful birthing conditions.” The Right to Reproductive Freedom initiative states plainly that, if passed, Missourians cannot be prosecuted for their pregnancy outcomes including miscarriage, stillbirth and abortion.

The initiative is extremely progressive for a deep-red state that has such a long anti-abortion history. The state only had three abortion clinics in 2017, and the last clinic closed shortly after Roe fell. Missouri currently has a near-total abortion ban with an exception to save the life of a pregnant person.

If the amendment passes, it would be a huge win for reproductive rights groups, and Missouri could become one of the few Midwest states with abortion access. But the state would still have a lot of work to do since many of the prior abortion regulations, such as Missouri’s 72-hour waiting period and ban on telemedicine, would need to be challenged in court.

The measure needs a simple majority to pass.

Montana

Montana’s Right to Abortion Initiative would enshrine the “right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion” until fetal viability. The government could regulate abortion after viability except in cases where abortion care is needed to protect the life or health of the pregnant person. The measure also protects Montanans from being prosecuted for “actual, potential, perceived or alleged pregnancy outcomes,” as well as protecting anyone who helps someone seeking abortion care.

The amendment would codify the state’s current abortion law, which restricts abortion care after 24 weeks. Montana voters need a simple majority to pass the amendment.

Nebraska

Nebraska will have two ballot measures addressing abortion, one in favor of abortion rights and one against. It’s the first time competing abortion measures will be on a state ballot since the Supreme Court repealed Roe.

The pro-choice amendment, also known as the Right to Abortion Initiative, would enshrine abortion access until fetal viability into the state constitution. The measure opposed to abortion rights seeks to codify the state’s current 12-week abortion ban, or a ban on abortion after the first trimester. The anti-choice initiative does have exceptions for rape, incest and in cases of a medical emergency.

Both amendments need a simple majority to pass.

Nevada

Nevada’s Question 6 would enshrine the right to abortion access until viability and when necessary to protect the health or life of the pregnant person throughout pregnancy. The amendment states that the right to abortion until viability “shall not be denied, burdened, or infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means.”

The measure, which needs a simple majority to pass, would enshrine Nevada’s current abortion law into the state constitution.

New York

Proposal 1 would amend New York’s Equal Rights Amendment to include protections for “pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy” which would codify abortion protections throughout pregnancy. While it does not explicitly state abortion protections, including protections for pregnancy outcomes and reproductive decisions in the state constitution would safeguard abortion access in the state.

The state’s Equal Rights Amendment currently criminalizes the denial of rights to people based on “race, color, creed or religion.” Proposal 1 would add ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, as well as reproductive health outcomes.

The initiative is noteworthy because, if passed, it will be the first equal rights amendment to include protections for pregnant people and pregnancy outcomes. Abortion is currently legal in New York until viability. Expanding the equal rights amendment to include pregnant people would codify the current law.

South Dakota

South Dakota’s Amendment G breaks down abortion protections by trimesters, similar to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The initiative would codify abortion protections until 13 weeks or through the first trimester, and then allow the government to regulate abortion in the second trimester “only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman.” In the third trimester, the state could regulate or ban abortions except in instances when the health or life of the pregnant person is at risk.

If the measure passes it would be a huge win for abortion rights groups because the state currently has a near-total abortion ban with no exceptions other than to save the life of a pregnant person. Pro-choice groups would still have a long way to go in restoring abortion access in the state, however. Even before Roe fell, South Dakota only had one abortion clinic left and zero in-state providers, and some regulations — like the state’s 72-hour waiting period before being able to access care — would likely need to be challenged in court.

The initiative needs a simple majority to pass.

[transfloridaresources]

[Photo ID: Article screen cap on a light background. Title text reads: ''I can't leave all the people who can't leave,' A Montana trans activist shows solidarity with trans youth & siblings in Florida--& vice versa. Adria L. Jawort. Dec. 13, 2023.' A color photo of a white adult standing outside in the sun, wearing sunglasses and smiling slightly, holding a sign that reads 'Florida Man Says Trans Rights.' /End ID]

Here's also a wonderful piece written by @indigitrans about the October 2023 Trans Youth March in Orlando (@transyouthmarch). Read the full thing here: https://adriajawort.substack.com/p/i-cant-leave-all-the-people-who-cant In the new year & facing more legal woes, it's easy to feel overwhelmed and frightened. One of the reasons that I started these accounts last year was to bring trans people together and remind ourselves that we're not alone. We have a lot of support, especially from each other. There are many trans Floridians who cannot leave the state or just plain don't want to. Why should we? And for what reason, anyway, when this is legislature that is creeping across the US and worldwide, regardless. Moving will not prevent this from happening. We must learn to build community and resources. We must look to other groups who have faced this before us, we must SUPPORT other groups who are still oppressed alongside us. The same systems oppress us all. None of us are free until we're all free. The stories that get the most attention are always the stories of panic and outrage. Don't believe them. There's many trans Floridians still here and thriving. We're resourceful and resilient and we're looking out for others too and vice versa. We're not alone and we didn't all leave and that is not the only answer. Our stories might not have the punch of a quick TikTok about Ron DeSantis kidnapping trans kids but most often the truth of any resistance cannot be summed up so quickly. It's persistence and resourcefulness. It's building community and caring for each other every. single. day. Anyway, we're all amazing & deserve to be here & you should internalize that message above any others saying otherwise. Don't listen to ignorant, hateful people just because they're loud sometimes. We have more support than not. And we're not going anywhere.

[reasonsforhope]

"Two years ago, the biggest battles in state legislatures were over voting rights. Democrats loudly — and sometimes literally — protested as Republicans passed new voting restrictions in states like Georgia, Florida and Texas. This year, attention has shifted to other hot-button issues, but the fight over the franchise has continued. Republicans have enacted dozens of laws this year that will make it harder for some people to vote in future elections. 

But this year, voting-rights advocates got some significant wins too: States — controlled by Democrats and Republicans — have enacted more than twice as many laws expanding voting rights as restricting them, although the most comprehensive voter-protection laws passed in blue states. In all, 39 states and Washington, D.C., have changed their election laws in some way this year...

Where voting rights were expanded in 2023 (so far)

Unlike two years ago, though, we’d argue that the bigger story of this year’s legislative sessions was all the ways states made it easier to vote. As of July 21, according to the Voting Rights Lab, [which runs an excellent and completely comprehensive tracker of election-related bills], 834 bills had been introduced so far this year expanding voting rights, and 64 had been enacted. What’s more, these laws are passing in states of all hues.

Democratic-controlled jurisdictions (Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island and Washington) enacted 33 of these new laws containing voting-rights expansions, but Republican-controlled states (Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming) were responsible for 23 of them. The remaining eight became law in states where the two parties share power (Nevada, Pennsylvania and Virginia).

That said, not all election laws are created equal, and the most comprehensive expansive laws passed in blue states. For example: 

New Mexico adopted a major voting-rights package that will automatically register New Mexicans to vote when they interact with the state’s Motor Vehicle Division, allow voters to request absentee ballots for all future elections without the need to reapply each time and restore the right to vote to felons who are on probation or parole. The law also allows Native Americans to register to vote and receive ballots at official tribal buildings and makes it easier for Native American officials to get polling places set up in pueblos and on tribal land.

Minnesota followed suit with a law also establishing automatic voter registration and a permanent absentee-voting list. The act allows 16- and 17-year-olds to preregister to vote too. Meanwhile, a separate new law also reenfranchises felons on probation or parole.

Michigan enacted eight laws implementing a constitutional amendment expanding voting rights that voters approved last year. Most notably, the laws guarantee at least nine days of in-person early voting and allow counties to offer as many as 29. The bills also allow voters to fix mistakes on their absentee-ballot envelopes so that their ballot can still count, track the status of their ballot online, and use student, military and tribal IDs as proof of identification. 

Connecticut became the sixth state to enact a state-level voting-rights act, which bars municipalities from discriminating against minority groups in voting, requires them to provide language assistance to certain language minority groups and requires municipalities with a record of voter discrimination to get preclearance before changing their election laws. The Nutmeg State also approved 14 days of early voting and put a constitutional amendment on the 2024 ballot that would legalize no-excuse absentee voting.

No matter its specific provisions, each of these election-law changes could impact how voters cast their ballots in future elections, including next year’s closely watched presidential race. There’s a good chance your state amended its election laws in some way this year, so make sure you double-check the latest rules in your state before the next time you vote."

-via FiveThirtyEight (via FutureCrunch), July 24, 2023

[fuckyeahmarxismleninism]

Today the far-right dominated Montana legislature, after first silencing her, plans to censure and expel its first elected trans woman member, Zooey Zephyr, just as the Tennessee legislature did to two young Black men. 

All because she dared to condemn legislation that will kill and torture trans children -- something that Democratic Party leaders and Joe Biden have refused to condemn, much less take action against.

These attacks go far beyond the scope of electoral politics. They are attacks on the right of oppressed people to be represented or even speak on matters that directly affect them. Fortunately, there is a growing fight-back movement to #LetHerSpeak. I have no doubt that there will be a fierce struggle to restore her seat if she is expelled, as there was for Justin Jones and Justin Pearson in Tennessee.

"Blue check" fans of Elon Musk are now openly calling for the public executions of trans people, their families and their health care providers. This is a fight for the whole working class and progressive movement. 

If you haven't spoken up, if you haven't joined a protest, if you haven't paid attention -- the time is now. 

- redguard

Artwork by Lee Leslie

[odinsblog]

“We are seeing a coordinated effort from far-right organizations in the country who are pitching these kinds of bills.

It's why the language matches so similarly to other bills. It's why the openings of representatives who are pushing these anti-trans bills sound eerily similar to the openings of legislators in other areas.

It's why the same handful of, quote, ‘detransitioners’ are flying around the country to speak on these bills.

And I think what we saw that at the beginning, because it's important to remember that these anti-trans bills began initially with a failed attempt at bathroom bans, and then their second attempt to sort of find a way in, was in sports bans. But their goal was never to simply pass a sports ban.

The goal was, as was stated in one of the conservative conventions this year, the goal was the elimination of trans people from public life, entirely.

And we have seen that escalation of legislation over the past few years.

We have seen it go, and now we're seeing these healthcare bans beginning to take root. We're seeing healthcare bans not just for youth, but in Missouri, adult healthcare bans. And in Florida, we bills that make it so that a trans child could be taken away from their parents. And Florida just passed a bathroom ban that makes it incredibly difficult to be a trans person in public.

So we're seeing not only coordinated efforts from far-right groups in the country to pass anti-trans legislation, but we are seeing an escalation of those attacks with an ultimate goal of removing trans people from public life entirely.

And that is why trans people and our allies are standing in our communities and standing in our legislatures and bringing attention to the urgency of this situation.”

—ZOEY ZEPHYR, Montana’s first openly transgender representative, speaking about Montana’s Senate Bill 99, trans representation, and anti-LGBTQ legislation currently sweeping Republican states.

[yourdailyqueer]

SJ Howell

Gender: Non binary (they/them)

Sexuality: Queer

DOB: 3 July 1980  

Ethnicity: White - American

Occupation: Politician (Democrat), activist

Note: First non-binary person to be elected to the state legislature in Montana

[deadpresidents]

I know I'm jumping ahead of things and you don't like what ifs but who would you want Kamala Harris to pick as VP if she was the presidential nominee?

If President Biden steps aside and Vice President Harris becomes the Democratic nominee, I think she needs to pick a Governor -- and probably a solid moderate to balance the ticket. If it were up to me, her running mate would be Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear. Governor Beshear has won three consecutive statewide elections (one as Attorney General and two as Governor) in a state that only Bill Clinton has won in Presidential elections dating back to 1980. Beshear was re-elected in 2023 and campaigned on protecting abortion rights, demonstrating that it's an issue that can win elections in conservative states. And Beshear is one of the most popular Governors in the nation despite the fact that he's battling a Republican supermajority in Kentucky's state legislature.

I think some of the other good options would be Governor Jared Polis of Colorado, Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania (who has only been in the job for a short time but is very popular and runs one of 2024's most critical swing states), and Governor Jay Inslee of Washington. I've heard Governor Roy Cooper of North Carolina and Governor J.B. Pritzker of Illinois mentioned as possibilities, but I'm not as high on either of them. On paper, Governor Cooper makes sense as a Democratic Governor who has won two statewide elections in a solidly red state, but I don't think Harris-Cooper is a ticket that energizes voters. I'd be intrigued by former Montana Governor Steve Bullock, who also won two statewide elections over the past decade in a deep red state and may be able to reach voters that Democrats often give up trying to win, but he has very little name recognition nationally. I think Harris and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg would make a really interesting ticket. That's a ticket that would energize voters in a way that most combinations could not. I wouldn't look to either chamber of Congress for a potential running mate.

[mariacallous]

Beginning in 2022, there were state referenda in six states and in every one—even very conservative states like Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana—they passed by comfortable margins. Seeing a way to increase the number of women able to get an abortion and avoid unfriendly courts and state legislatures, the pro-choice movement went into action and placed a referendum on the ballot in Ohio in 2023 (which won easily) and then placed referenda on 10 more states for 2024. Some of these states—Colorado, Maryland, and New York—were blue states where Harris was expected to win. The referenda were expected to pass easily and did. They also passed easily where Trump was expected to win—in the deep red states of Montana (57.6%), Missouri (51,6%,) and Nebraska (55.3%.) In Florida, it did not pass, but that’s because although it got 57.1% of the vote, the legislature raised the bar for winning to 60%. South Dakota was the only state where the pro-choice referenda lost.

In the two swing states with abortion on the ballot, Arizona and Nevada, the referenda won easily, with 61.4% of the vote in Arizona and 63.8% of the vote in Nevada. What is clear from the outcomes in those states is that many people figured they could have their cake and eat it too—so to speak. They could vote to keep abortion legal but then vote for Trump for president. In Arizona, Harris so far only has 46.8% of the vote, meaning that 14.6% of the voters voted for the pro-choice position on abortion and for Donald Trump. In Nevada, Harris has so far received 47.2% of the vote—meaning that 16.6% of the voters voted pro-choice and for Trump. In many states voters have had a way to protect abortion rights while voting for Republican candidates.

...

By the time of the actual election, the gender gap had been cut in half and Harris’ lead among women had plummeted. A method for protecting abortion (the referenda) had reduced the need for voters to elect pro-choice candidates since they could still vote to keep abortion legal.

Women favored abortion rights but not Harris