Mediaboss Marketing

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

During his first few weeks in office, President Joe Biden has reversed the ban on transgender people in the military and directed U.S. government agencies operating abroad to protect the human rights of LGBTQ people worldwide.

But LGBTQ advocates and lawmakers in Texas face a much tougher battle in the Republican-controlled Legislature affirming LGBTQ peoples rights and protecting them from discrimination.

This legislative session, some legislators are trying to pass bills that would prohibit conversion therapy and discrimination against LGBTQ Texans. Theyre also trying to prevent laws that would ban transgender girls and women from joining single-sex sports teams in public schools and universities or laws that could keep doctors from providing care affirming childrens gender identity.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal civil rights law prevents employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Biden has said he will prioritize The Equality Act, which would go a step further and prohibit similar discrimination in housing, public education and other places.

State Rep. Jessica Gonzlez, D-Dallas, said the fate of congressional attempts at expanding federal protections is uncertain. While the Supreme Court has ruled on employment nondiscrimination, she said the state Legislature still needs to put laws on the books that protect LGBT Texans from more forms of discrimination.

She plans to introduce a bill that would provide protections for LGBTQ Texans from discrimination in employment, public accommodations and housing. The bill will boost the economy by attracting more businesses to Texas if the state affords its LGBTQ employees equal protections, she said.

We're facing a global pandemic, and aside from passing nondiscrimination legislation because its the right thing to do, there is good policy there, said Gonzlez, the vice chair of the Texas House LGBTQ Caucus. There's solid research behind it that shows ... our state will reap economic benefits for being inclusive and embracing diversity.

A statewide nondiscrimination law would lead to billions in both annual state and local government revenues by 2025 and hundreds of thousands of jobs by 2045, according to a 2020 study from The Perryman Group, an economic research firm in Waco.

Jessica Shortall, managing director of Texas Competes, a statewide coalition of businesses promoting equality, said the nondiscrimination bill will also impact tourism. She said that a lack of discrimination protections could also dissuade people from visiting the state whose lawmakers four years ago spent a regular and special legislative session debating the failed bathroom bill. That legislation sought to limit which public restrooms transgender Texans can use.

When we come out of the pandemic, every state and every city is going to be fiercely competing to win tourism back, which has taken one of the biggest hits in terms of industries in this pandemic, Shortall said. It's every city, every state for itself fighting for this business ... and knowing that we're going to end this practice of targeting LGBTQ people and trans people in particular would make Texas cities and Texas as a state more competitive for tourism.

Some Democratic lawmakers and LGBTQ advocates acknowledge that the bills theyre pushing may not become law in the Republican-dominated state Legislature after Democrats underperformed their own expectations in November and made no gains in the House.

Democrats also hoped the bipartisanship of having at least two Republicans sign on to the bill would increase its odds, but they lost one of their GOP allies in former state Rep. Sarah Davis of West University Place, who was ousted in the 2020 election.

Despite the outcome of the elections in November and Democrats hoping to gain some seats to hopefully make it a little bit easier for us, our priority legislation hasn't changed as far as the people who are supporting this bill, Gonzlez said.

If Democrats cant change the law, they hope to at least have hearings for bills that would amplify the voices of LGBTQ Texans to gather support and educate others in the state.

State Rep. Celia Israel, D-Austin, filed House Bill 560, which would penalize state-licensed counselors and therapists who engage in conversion therapy with children. She has filed a similar version of the bill every session since her first in 2015, and the bill was debated in a public hearing for the first time during the last session.

The Legislature is built not to be a very productive body. But if you can have a robust hearing and have heartfelt testimony, that really resonates. That in it of itself is a victory, said Israel, a founding member of the Texas House LGBTQ Caucus. It can be a reminder to the opposition that when you promote this kind of stuff, you're promoting hatred and division, and that's not the Texas that we all want.

While previous legislative sessions included heated disputes over bills that targeted LGBTQ people, members of the caucus are hopeful about future progress made in the Texas House under the leadership of the new House Speaker Dade Phelan, R-Beaumont.

During the 2019 session, the Texas Senate advanced legislation that would have restricted how local governments regulate private businesses. The upper chamber drew ire from LGBTQ advocates after taking out a measure that would have explicitly kept local nondiscrimination ordinances in place.

Phelan, the former chair of the House Committee on State Affairs, notably advanced a House bill with the protections for LGBTQ workers added back, but the bill died after the two chambers couldnt reconcile the differences.

Phelan said during an interview in 2019 with Evan Smith, CEO of the Texas Tribune, that he wanted to send a message to the House that nondiscrimination language is important.

Im kind of done talking about bashing on the gay community, Phelan said during the interview. Its completely unacceptable.

Even if pro-LGBTQ bills get a hearing and pass the Texas House, they will likely face challenges in Lt. Gov. Dan Patricks Senate. Patrick, whose spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment, previously championed the battle in 2017 to pass the bathroom bill.

While trying to get bills over the finish line, LGBTQ advocates and caucus members are also turning their efforts to trying to prevent lawmakers from passing legislation that they say is discriminatory. One of the bills includes House Bill 1458 by State Rep. Valoree Swanson, R-Spring, which would ban transgender women from playing on single-sex sports teams designated for girls and women at public K-12 schools and universities.

One study shows that hormones do not have a significant performance advantage for transgender women in distance running, and there has been no significant recorded dominance of transgender athletes in womens sports.

Dan Quinn, spokesperson for the nonpartisan Texas Freedom Network, said he hopes the Legislature provides protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, but he also is preparing to fight bills that would promote discrimination against transgender Texans.

After the year we've all gone through with COVID and all the other challenges we face, it seems unconscionable that we would be going into a session which we have to be concerned that lawmakers are going to be passing bills that promote discrimination against anybody, whether they're LGBTQ or not, Quinn said.

Disclosure: Texas Freedom Network has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

See original here:
Texas Democrats push for LGBTQ protections and ban on conversion therapy - The Texas Tribune

Do you think that the D.N.C. should have devoted more attention and resources to down-ballot contests given the results in state legislative and congressional races?

The thing about this election cycle that is really regrettable is that we had record turnout. And we should be celebrating that on a bipartisan basis, because we did really well. We won the presidency. We have the House. We have the Senate. And Republicans won in a number of critical races. Thats undeniable. They won a number of Senate seats. They won a number of congressional seats. And they won because a lot of their people turned out. And instead, what Donald Trump and the far right chose to do is to invest in this fiction that there was some sort of massive voter fraud, which is inaccurate.

The reality is we won a series of really important races. And they won a number of down-ballot races. Those are the facts of 2020. And thats why were absolutely drilling down deeper to answer the question of how did we do well for Mark Kelly and Joe Biden in Arizona and not so well in some of the State House and State Senate races. Really important question. It certainly wasnt for lack of investment. And thats why were looking to understand what else do we have to do.

Why was Latino support for Democrats so much softer in 2020 after four years of Trump than it was in 2016 and elections before that?

Do we need to do more with Latino voters? Absolutely. And I am very committed to that. We did more than the party has ever done. But again, every cycle, we need to build on what we did before. And thats exactly what we will do. The misinformation campaigns in South Florida were very real. And they involved both domestic and foreign actors.

And the appeals to socialism in South Florida were more successful. They made those same socialism arguments in Arizona. But they fell flat. And they fell flat, in no small measure, because we had a really aggressive and longstanding organizing infrastructure in Arizona that enabled us to counteract that.

Will the 2022 and 2024 elections be a referendum on President Bidens handling of the pandemic and the economy?

What voters are going to ask themselves is the same question they always ask. Am I better off than I was two years ago? Am I seeing results that are improving my life? As they are able to return to normalcy, whatever normalcy is going to look like post-Covid, I think that they will appreciate that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris led during this crisis.

Should Iowa and New Hampshire keep going first in the presidential nominating process?

That will be up to the D.N.C.s Rules and Bylaws Committee.

Im aware. But what does the private citizen Tom Perez think?

A diverse state or states need to be first. The difference between going first and going third is really important. We know the importance of momentum in Democratic primaries.

Ill try one more time. Could you make a case for defending Iowa and New Hampshire going first?

The status quo is clearly unacceptable. To simply say, Lets just continue doing this because this is how weve always done it, well, Iowa started going as an early caucus state, I believe, in 1972. The world has changed a lot since 1972 to 2020 and 2024. And so the notion that we need to do it because this is how weve always done it is a woefully insufficient justification for going first again.

This is the Democratic Party of 2020. Its different from the Democratic Party in how we were in 1972. And we need to reflect that change. And so I am confident that the status quo is not going to survive.

How far down the road are you in thinking about running for governor of Maryland?

Im seriously considering a run for governor in Maryland.

We need a governor who can really build strong relationships with the Biden administration, will build strong relationships with every one of the jurisdictions in Maryland.

Marylanders are just like everybody else. We want an end to this pandemic. We want to put kids back to school. We want to put people back to work. The pandemic has disproportionately touched women and communities of color in Maryland. And Ive had the fortune of working in local government, and with the nonprofit faith communities and state government there.

So Im currently listening. Im on a listening tour in Maryland. And I think we need leadership, really, with a bold vision of inclusion and opportunity because ZIP code should never determine destiny in any community across America.

Has Larry Hogan been a good governor for Maryland?

I appreciate the fact that Larry Hogan has said critical things about Donald Trump. I appreciate that. What we really need, I think, in Maryland is leaders who will sweat the details of governance. The pandemic rollout, the vaccination process has been nothing less than chaotic in Maryland. Weve had an unemployment insurance crisis, people waiting months and months to get their unemployment benefits. Thats just a failure of leadership at a state level.

I didnt hear a yes or no on Hogan.

I applaud that he tried to get some tests from South Korea. But then it turned out that the tests didnt work. And he covered it up. And theres always going to be moments where mistakes are made. And good leaders fess up to those mistakes. But he tried to sweep it under the rug.

Again, its great to see a governor who criticizes Donald Trump. But we need governors who do a hell of a lot more than just criticize.

What would you be doing differently to accelerate vaccine distribution and reopen schools faster?

I would be on the phone every day with county executives making sure: What do you need? What do you not have? What do you have? What can we do? I would be relentlessly reaching out to our colleagues in the federal government to say: Heres what we need. Heres whats going on. I would have a war room set up and, again, every single day, say: You value what you measure. You measure what you value. What are we doing?

Donald Trump is partly to blame for this. He was a disaster. But you look at other states other states have been able to work around that and are doing better. Our vaccination rates do not compare well. Were the richest state in the United States Maryland but we have way too many people who are on the outside looking in.

You said good leaders admit their mistakes. What were the biggest mistakes you made at the D.N.C.?

I wish that we could have won more elections. And so Im looking back at what we did and some of the races we didnt win. I was really frustrated in January and early February of 2017, because Donald Trump was in power and he was issuing all sorts of executive actions that were turning life upside down for so many people. That was in the middle of the D.N.C. race because the election wasnt set until the end of February. So we got a late start. And I think that was a mistake.

It was frustrating to see Feb. 27, a month into the administration, and Im just showing up at work for the first time. So I think we have to be very mindful. And if there are periods of time in the future where were in a similar situation, where weve lost the White House, we better make sure we start early because I had to play a lot of catch-up. And that was a mistake.

View original post here:
Tom Perez on Democrats Mistakes and Why Iowa Shouldnt Go First - The New York Times

Democrats defended their prosecution of Donald Trumps impeachment trial on Sunday and hinted at the possibility of criminal charges, after failing to convince enough senators the former president was guilty of inciting the deadly Capitol attack.

The 57-43 vote for a conviction, which fell short of the two-thirds majority required, was still the biggest bipartisan impeachment vote in US history and amounted to a complete repudiation of Trumps conduct, lead House manager Jamie Raskin insisted. Seven Republicans crossed party lines to vote with every Democratic and independent senator after the five-day trial.

But the tactics of Raskin and his team have come under scrutiny, with some Democrats asking if the decision not to seek witness testimony, after senators voted early on the trials final day to allow it, was a mistake.

Specifically, evidence was not heard from the Washington congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler about a call between Trump and Republican House leader Kevin McCarthy during the 6 January riot showing that the president would not call off his supporters.

Well Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election theft than you are, Beutler said Trump replied when the House minority leader pleaded for him to recall the mob who overran the Capitol in support of the presidents false claims of a stolen election.

On Sunday, the Washington Post reported that the question of whether to call witnesses sparked lengthy debate among the House managers, who ultimately agreed to a deal to accept Beutlers statement as a written record. The decision diverted the likelihood of the trial extending days, if not weeks as both sides deposed witnesses.

I know that people are feeling a lot of angst, and believe that maybe if we had this, the senators would have done what we wanted, Stacey Plaskett, a congressional delegate from the Virgin Islands and impeachment team member, told CNNs State of the Union.

We didnt need more witnesses, we needed more senators with spines. We believe that we proved the case, we proved the elements of the article of impeachment. Its clear that these individuals were hardened, that they did not want to let the [former] president be convicted, or disqualified.

Raskin concurred.

These Republicans voted to acquit in the face of this mountain of unrefuted evidence, he told NBCs Meet the Press. Theres no reasoning with people who basically are acting like members of a religious cult.

Among the 43 senators to vote to acquit Trump was Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader who nonetheless followed his not guilty vote with a fiery and contradictory post-trial speech on the Senate floor, in which he condemned Trump for a disgraceful dereliction of duty.

Theres no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day, McConnell said. No question about it.

President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office as an ordinary citizen, the Kentucky Republican added, raising the prospect of criminal charges for the 45th US president over the riot. He didnt get away with anything. Yet.

Neither Raskin nor Madeleine Dean, an impeachment manager who told ABCs This Week McConnell was speaking out of two sides of his mouth, ruled out criminal prosecution for Trump, saying the decision would be up to others.

Larry Hogan, the Republican governor of Maryland and a frequent Trump critic, went further.

There was yesterdays vote, but theres still a number of potential court cases that I think hes still going to face, in criminal courts and the court of public opinion, he told CNN. This is not over and were going to decide over the next couple of years what the fate of Donald Trump and the Republican party is.

Prosecutors in Georgia are investigating calls by Trump and an ally, Lindsey Graham, in which state Republican officials were pressured to overturn Bidens victory.

Chris Murphy, a Democratic senator for Connecticut, said Trumps acquittal proved he was still firmly in charge of the Republican party, and that trial witnesses would not have swayed any more senators.

They werent going to get any more Republican votes than they had and I think they made the right decision to move to closing arguments, he told CNN. I dont know that they would have lost votes, I just am pretty confident they were at their high watermark yesterday morning. I know that [among the] Senate Republican caucus, I cant figure out who their eighth or ninth vote was going to be.

Donald Trumps going to be in charge of their party for the next four years. As they were deathly afraid of him for the last four years, they are going to continue to be afraid of him for the next four years.

Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana senator who was among the Republican dissidents, expanded on his reasoning for his vote after declaring on Saturday it was simply because [Trump] is guilty.

We can see the president for two months after the election promoting that the election was stolen, he told ABC. He scheduled the rally for 6 January, just when the transfer of power was to take place. And even after he knew there was violence taking place, he continued to basically sanction the mob being there. And not until later did he actually ask them to leave.

Cassidy said he was unconcerned by a backlash in Louisiana, where the state GOP has censured him and the chair of the Republican caucus warned him not to expect a warm welcome back.

I have the privilege of having the facts before me and being able to spend several days deeply going into those facts, he said.

As these facts become more and more out there, and folks have a chance to look for themselves, more will move to where I was. People want to trust their leaders, they want people to be held accountable.

Visit link:
Democrats defend decision not to call witnesses as strategy under scrutiny - The Guardian

The 2018 and 2019 numbers come from a smaller sample than the National Election Survey election-year data, but even if we dismiss 2019 as a blip, it is noteworthy that the Democratic share has fallen every survey since 2008. It is becoming more difficult to write this off as simply a return to the pre-Obama status quo.

Many minorities who no longer identify as Democrats have become independents rather than Republicans much like their white Catholic predecessors initially did but this means their loyalties are increasingly up for grabs on Election Day.

In order to understand what may be occurring, it is useful to examine which kind of minority voter leans Republican. For Hispanics and Asian-Americans, this raises the question of assimilation. If these newer groups follow the path laid by earlier generations of Italians and Jews, they will come to identify themselves more and more as white rather than as minorities. The political scientists lvaro Corral and David Leal show that Latinos whose family had been in America for three generations were more likely to vote for Mr. Trump in 2016. My analysis of Pew survey data from 2018 reveals that there is a big gap between the immigrant Hispanic generation and the third generation (representing a child of a U.S.-born Hispanic). Almost 80 percent of the immigrant Hispanic generation voted Democratic, whereas the third generation figure was about 60 percent.

Mr. Trumps more defensive, cultural brand of nationalism and occasionally racist comments were once thought to be a deal-breaker for minority voters. However, these messages can resonate with minorities. In addition, according to my analysis, Hispanics who are American-born and native English speakers are more likely to believe others see them as white. Hispanics and Asians who say their American identity is extremely important to them also feel warmer toward white Americans.

Hispanics who predominantly speak English are more secure about their position in American society. When asked in 2018 whether Mr. Trumps election gave them serious concerns about their place in America or whether they were confident they belonged, these Hispanics were 22 points more confident than those who predominantly speak Spanish.

For African-Americans, data from a Qualtrics survey I conducted shows that voters with the weakest attachment to their Black identity had a higher propensity to vote for Mr. Trump, and these voters were more likely to live in ZIP codes with a smaller Black population. While just 16 percent of African-Americans in our sample said their Black identity was not especially important to them, the political scientist Tasha Philpot writes that attendance at a Black church is often linked to a stronger Black identity, and thus to higher Democratic identification. And if Black voters moved away from what Ismail White, a political scientist at Duke, calls social networks within the Black community, that might limit the power of the community to enforce a Democratic-voting norm.

Joe Bidens coalition, which is less dependent on minority votes, could insulate the Democrats from the political risks of any minority movement away from the left. Meanwhile, Mr. Trumps better-than-expected performance in 2020 suggests a Republican coalition of secure minorities and anxious whites may be a match for the emerging Democratic majority of anxious minorities and secure whites.

Eric Kaufmann (@epkaufm), a professor of politics at Birkbeck, University of London, is the author of Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities and is affiliated with the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology and the Manhattan Institute.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Visit link:
Opinion | How Stable Is the Democratic Coalition? - The New York Times

In the latest stimulus package, Democrats are moving ahead with plans to provide American families with $3,000 per school-aged child over the year next. Although the increase would be temporary, some lawmakers want to see a permanent boost put in place to dramatically reduce child poverty in the U.S.

On Monday night, the House Ways and Means Committee released the details of many of the policies under consideration in the third Covid-19 relief package. That includes a proposal that would institute a fully refundable child tax credit for 2021 and increase the amount to $3,000 per child ages 6 to 17 and $3,600 annually for children under the age of 6.

There's already a child tax credit in place that provides $2,000 per child for 2020. When Americans file their taxes, they can claim the credit for children under 17. The current credit is income-based, so those making over $200,000 ($400,000 for married couples filing jointly) will see the amount of their credit gradually phased out. If taxpayers' credit exceeds their taxes owed, they can get up to $1,400 as a refund.

The Democrats' new proposal would increase the credit amount by $1,000 ($1,600 for those with children under 6) and allow taxpayers to receive the full amount as a refund. Additionally, the plan would make the credit payable in monthly installments of $250 and $300, respectively, rather than just once a year. The payments would start to phase out for individuals earning more than $75,000 a year or $150,000 for those married filing jointly.

If passed, the Treasury Department could issue advance payments of up to half the 2021 child tax credit starting in July based on families' 2019 or 2020 tax return information. If there is any overpayment of the credit, individuals making less than $40,000 ($60,000 for couples filing jointly) will not need to repay the amount, nor will it be garnished from wages.

"It is an historic proposal in terms of lowering child poverty," says Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. But it's only a temporary increase. If it were to become permanent, it would be a "landmark achievement," he says.

Some Democrats are proposing to permanently increase to the child tax credit. Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) and Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) re-introduced the American Family Act on Monday, which would permanently increase the child tax credit by $1,000 per child ages 6 to 18 and $1,600 for children under 6. The credit, like the proposed language in the relief bill, would be paid monthly.

The American Family Act also provides the benefit for higher-income earners. Individuals who earn up to $150,000 and married couples filing jointly who earn up to $200,000 can qualify. Additionally, the bill proposes indexing the credit to inflation so that it will not be diminished over time.

Currently, the combination of the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, which subsidizes low-income working families, lifts 5.5 million children out of poverty a year, Marr tells CNBC Make It. A permanent $3,000 child tax credit would lift an additional 4.1 million children above the poverty line, he estimates. "It's not quite doubling, but it's really a similar order of magnitude," Marr says.

DeLauro's office projects that the increase to the child tax credit, if implemented on a permanent basis and with a higher income cap as she has proposed, would cut overall childhood poverty by 45% in the U.S.

"The inclusion of an expansion and improvement of the child tax credit in coronavirus rescue legislation moving in the House this week is groundbreaking, but we cannot stop there," DeLauro says. "We must use this moment to pass the American Family Act and permanently expand and improve the child tax credit by increasing the benefit to families and providing payments monthly. Children and families must be able to count on this benefit long after the end of this pandemic."

Senator Mitt Romney proposed a similar increase to the child tax credit last week, but created a permanent increase of $3,000 a year per child for school-aged children and $4,200 per child under 6.

In order to fund the new child assistance, Romney's proposal would reduce the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) and eliminate Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the State and Local Tax Deduction (SALT) and the head-of-household tax filing status, as well as several other credits for children and families.

The Democrats' legislative proposal, meanwhile, would not eliminate any existing child or family programs, but instead add as much as $120 billion to the federal deficit to cover the cost.

Marr says that while Romney's plan proposes a higher payment for younger children, it's "completely counterproductive" because it then claws back two-thirds of those gains by eliminating other credits that work in tandem for families.A lot of these family assistance programs work in concert with others to help low-income families, Marr says.

Check out:Mitt Romney proposes giving American families an extra $3,000 a year

Don't miss:Here are the 5 best personal loans of December 2020

See the rest here:
Democrats push forward with temporary $3,000 child tax credit, but some want to make increase permanent - CNBC