Annise Parker, entering her post-mayoral election party. (Photo by @miyashay via Twitter.)

Houston City Controller Annise Parker has now reached what the Houston Chronicle calls an “unbeatable lead” in her run-off election to become the first openly LGBT mayor of a major American city.  In a race that had anti-gay mailings and other gay-baiting of lore, Parker pushed forward with the campaign the had made her the highest vote-getter in the general election in November.  She continued with that spirit in her victory message tonight:

Let us begin from this moment to join as one community, united in the goal of making Houston the city it could be, should be, can be and will be. That’s what this city will be about under my administration.

Houston is a city that invites entrepreneurs – and shelters evacuees. A diverse city. A city built on dreams powered by hard work, creativity, common sense and cooperation.

[UPDATE: After her opponent, Gene Locke, conceded, Parker gave her victory speech:

This election has changed the world for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community just as it is about transforming the lives of all Houstonians for the better. And that's what my Admin will be about.

The New York Times gave the victory top billing on its Web site late Saturday night and into early Sunday morning with an article, "Houston Is Largest City to Elect Openly Gay Mayor."  The Houston Chronicle has up a photo gallery, "A New Mayor."]

Even as the race was happening, though, people sensed history was being made.

Speaking about 1977, and Anita Bryant’s campaign against emerging homosexual equality, longtime Texas LGBT activist Ray Hill was asked on KHOU tonight about how today happened.  His answer:

“Forty-three years of work.”

Hill was talking about Bryant’s visit to Houston, detailed in an OutSmart article from 2002:

When renowned singer, Florida Citrus Commission spokesperson, and ardent Christian Anita Bryant was asked by the Texas Bar Association to sing at their annual state convention held in Houston in June 1977, no one could have foreseen what significance her appearance would have on our community. The leaders of the march to protest her antediluvian views had no inkling that their peaceful, yet loud, protest would rouse Houston’s queer populace with a roar unheard since NYC’s Stonewall riot of ’69.

As Hill detailed tonight, the few hundred people expected to protest became multiple thousands of protesters and, “That night we became a community.”

That night, Houston’s LGBT population may have become a community, but today, with Annise Parker’s victory, it is clear that Houston has become so much more.

As Parker told CNN’s Don Lemmon before the race was called, “Houston is a diverse, international, open, modern city” where all can succeed.

And, as Hill told KHOU, tomorrow’s focus will again be on the potholes and taxes and all of the other problems that every city mayor faces.

Parker’s full message is below the jump.

* * * * *

To my Friends, Supporters and all Houstonians,

In this campaign, I met many Houstonians.

I met fathers worried about finding a good job. I met mothers worried about crime. I met young men and women who only want a chance for a good education. Families worried about taxes. Homeowners who just want to protect the neighborhood they love. Hear me: the city is on your side.

I learned about the problems and the needs and the hopes of our city at the neighborhood level, where families work and live. This election has changed the world for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities, just as this election is about transforming Houstonians’ lives for the better.

Let us begin from this moment to join as one community, united in the goal of making Houston the city it could be, should be, can be and will be. That’s what this city will be about under my administration.

Houston is a city that invites entrepreneurs – and shelters evacuees. A diverse city. A city built on dreams powered by hard work, creativity, common sense and cooperation.

Public service is a noble calling, and I appreciate that Gene Locke was willing to answer this call. He is a man who has been deeply involved in our community for many years and I hope he will continue to serve Houston. I wish for him and his family the very best.

Let me close by saying that while this is an exciting night, it is also a humbling experience. Our citizens deserve our best effort and I pledge to give them an administration that values honesty, integrity and transparency above all else. My administration will be concerned with only one interest: the public good.

Thank you so much. Together, we will make a difference.

Election Day.  Our rights, on the ballot.  (If you’ve not voted, stop reading this post and go vote now!)

In Maine and Washington, voters across the state will decide whether marriage equality and domestic partnerships, respectively, will be allowed to continue following a legislature’s vote to implement them.  In Kalamazoo, Michigan, voters are deciding whether to allow the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance to stay in effect.

These days feel weird because they’re days in which, come poll closing time, we await word from the populace about whether we are accepted in the places we call home.

But — as word came in that a legal challenge from the far Right to Cleveland’s domestic-partner registry was rejected by a judge today — I was reminded that we are on a path toward equality.  We are progressing.

Keep fighting the good fight.  Keep telling our stories.  Keep talking with our families and neighbors and co-workers.

Equality will win out.

* * * * *

For those on Twitter, I’ve created a “list” people can follow that is focused on Election ‘09 LGBT Issues.  Marc Ambinder’s all-purpose Election ‘09 list can be found here.  And, if you’ve not yet, check out my “Ten Races to Watch.”

1. Maine: Question 1 — Residents are being asked to vote No to preserve the marriage bill passed by the legislature and signed and supported by the governor earlier this year.  Activists have been raising money aplenty on both sides, but Mainers are an independent bunch.  The polls have tightened significantly, and the direction of the polling continues to show the effectiveness of “recruiting the kids” campaigning that many of us thought went out with Anita Bryant.  A victory here would both be a very real victory for the people of Maine, but also a signal to supporters of marriage equality that the tales told be our opponents are losing steam and that we can win this struggle.  A loss will, as usual, lead to second-guessing and re-calibrating for the next time.
2. New Jersey: Governor — Chris Christie sounds like someone who has few friends.  He just seems like a bit of a jerk.  Jon Corzine is a slick, political guy who, fortunately for me, takes positions on issues — including marriage equality — that gel with mine.  This is the race that will be blown up to mean Everything for 2010.  It doesn’t, but it will be spun that way by the winner, so I’ll be watching this very close race to see who gets to have that message.
3. New York: The 23rd Congressional District Special Election — Wow.  The local Republican Party’s nominee to replace President Obama’s Army Secretary John McHugh, a Republican, endorsed the Democrat in the race on Sunday after suspending her race on Saturday because the far Right had backed her Conservative Party opponent.  This race puts soap operas to shame. It seems likely that Doug Hoffman, the Conservative, will defeat Bill Owens, the Democrat, but Dede Scozzafava’s endorsement of Owens could make this race a tighter one than we think. Regardless of the victor, this is a race to keep in mind as teabaggers and others talk about the ascendancy of the far Right. The long-term implications, though, of Hoffman’s win could be an even further narrowing of the GOP’s messaging, which isn’t going to win races across the country.
4. Virginia: Governor — As Creigh Deeds (D) heads to what seems to be an all but inevitable defeat in Virginia, the question will be: Why?  How, after trending more blue in recent elections, did Bob McDonnell (R) slide to an easy victory?  Many people already have started to give their more-informed-than-mine opinion on that question, but the real question for tomorrow will be what effect Deeds’ flagging campaign will have on the rest of the ticket.
5. Virginia: Attorney General — Particularly Democrat Steve Shannon’s campaign against Kenneth Cuccinelli (R) to serve as the Attorney General of Virginia.  Cuccinelli is a scary man.  And I’m not alone in having — or expressing — that opinion.  The Washington Post called him “worrying” in its endorsement of Shannon and expressed concern over his “sometimes bizarre and incendiary ideas.”  If Cuccinelli finds his way to the A.G.’s Office, many will look to Deeds and wonder whether Terry McAuliffe would have been any better — at least at stopping the bleeding.
6. Washington: Referendum 71 — The referendum asks voters to Approve the measure to keep the domestic partnerships approved by the legislature.  It is likely to succeed, and domestic partnerships will be in Washington state to stay, but we’ve been surprised before so the troops out there are going to keep going ’til the very end.  Recall that Washington is a vote-by-mail-only state, and ballots just need to be postmarked by Election Day, so it’s possible that the result could be a while coming.
7. Georgia: Atlanta Mayor — Mary Norwood, currently a member of Atlanta’s City Council, could become the city’s first white mayor since 1973.  City Council President Lisa Borders and former state lawmaker Kasim Reed, who already were trailing Norwood, have picked up little support from undecided voters in the past month.  A candidate, though, needs to receive a majority of the vote to avoid a December run-off, which Norwood might not reach on Tuesday.  The recent entry of the state Democratic party into the race in support of Borders and Reed because of questions about Norwood’s political affiliations has sparked a flurry of last-minute interest and should make hitting the 50+1 mark difficult for Norwood on Tuesday.
8. Michigan: Kalamazoo Ordinance 1856 — Residents are being asked to vote Yes to keep Kalamazoo’s twice approved ordinance for housing, employment, and public accommodation protections for LGBT residents.  This is the third of three LGBT issues on the ballot across the country this fall, so equality advocates are keeping an eye on this race as well.
9. New York: New York City Mayor — As Nate Silver has noted, Mayor Michael Bloomberg almost certainly will win re-election.  But, in an odd year and being New York City, where the winner is a de facto national figure, it’s worth seeing if Bill Thompson, Bloomberg’s Democratic challenger, upsets him.
10. Ohio: Issue 2 — Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland endorsed this constitutional amendment put on the ballot by the General Assembly, but many of the measure’s biggest opponents are the liberal base of the Democratic Party.  Issue 2 places in the Ohio Constitution, an Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, whose sole purpose is to supersede and prevent a planned attempt to bring a statutory issue to voters in 2010 similar to the humane cages measure approved by California voters in 2008.  I have written in support of a No vote on this issue previously and, though likely to pass, I’d like to see the issue gain less support than the Governor and agri-business supporting the measure are expecting.  (Ohio’s Issue 3 — relating to casinos — likely will be closer and is more controversial within the state, but I find the issue less interesting than everyone else does, so I’ll leave it to others to comment on that.)

What races are you watching?

OK, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act becoming law was amazing, but we cannot rest.  Election Day brings us three opportunities to preserve equality efforts in Maine and Washington state, as well as in Kalamazoo!

The great folks at the Courage Campaign have set up a resource page so that everyone can know what’s going on in those places and what they can do to help.  Go there now, so that we don’t wake up next Wednesday to any equality setbacks:

3-2-1 Countdown to Equality

]]> http://lawdork.net/2009/10/29/next-up-3-2-1-countdown-to-equality/feed/ 0 http://lawdork.net/2009/10/14/ohios-issue-2-subverting-democracy-with-democracy/ http://lawdork.net/2009/10/14/ohios-issue-2-subverting-democracy-with-democracy/#comments Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:07:16 +0000 Chris Geidner http://lawdork.net/?p=3843

Calves in veal crates. (Image from the Humane Society of the United States.)

Issue 2 is a constitutional amendment that the General Assembly abruptly placed on the ballot earlier this year to be voted on in November.  It would create the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, a nice enough-sounding board whose sole purpose for existence is to subvert more aggressive laws to protect farm animals.   It is misguided and should fail.  Unfortunately, with what the Plain Dealer described as Gov. Ted Strickland’s “irresponsibl[e]” endorsement, it will be an uphill battle to defeat this constitutional amendment.

The Columbus Dispatch editorial board, which also opposes the measure, summed up the genesis of this proposed amendment quite well:

The Ohio Constitution is not the appropriate vehicle for determining how the state should regulate the care of livestock.

Yet political interests continue to try to try to amend that venerable document to push their agendas. The agriculture lobby, with a proposed constitutional amendment to create a statewide board to set care standards for livestock, is just the latest.

The Ohio House, with the strong support of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, voted 84-13 on Wednesday to place an issue on the statewide ballot in November that would create a 13-member Livestock Care Standards Board. The Senate passed a similar measure yesterday.

Farmers aren’t typically eager for more government regulation, but the proposed board is an attempt to avoid rules they would like even less: a state law banning common practices that confine pigs, chickens, veal calves and other animals in tight spaces.

The whole thing is a picture-perfect example of subverting the Democratic process — under the guise of democracy.  The ballot language sounds like it mightn’t be that bad, informing voters that the Board would:

be comprised of thirteen Ohio residents including representatives of Ohio family farms, farming organizations, food safety experts, veterinarians, consumers, the dean of the agriculture department at an Ohio college or university and a county humane society representative.

What it doesn’t say is that 10 of the 13 board members are appointed by the governor, which means they could hold whatever view the governor desires that his or her appointees hold.  The amendment says nothing about terms of the appointees and, as such, they would serve at the pleasure of the governor and could be replaced at any time.  Also, technically, the governor holds 11 of the 13 spots, as the chair of the board is the director of the Agriculture Department, a gubernatorial appointment.

What’s far more problematic, though, is that the business interests promoting this measure placed it not as a statutory change but as a constitutional amendment.  Remind you of anything?  Like, say, the marriage amendment voters approved as Issue 1 five years ago?  The reasons for proponents of the measures wishing to enshrine their vision in Ohio’s Constitution is the same: It makes it harder for changing political opinions to work themselves out in a Democratic, political process.

It is just such a Democratic process that feared the agribusiness industry: Proponents of more humane treatment for animals on factory farms were looking to place a statutory ballot measure on the ballot here in 2010.  If the agribusiness industry succeeds in getting voters to approve this vague, no-real-standards constitutional board, then the debate in which Ohio voters would have engaged about the proper, real statutory protections for animal safety in Ohio law would be preempted and shut down.

Such debates over changing policy preferences ought to be free to evolve with the voters and not be cut short by constitutional specifications.

As the Dayton Daily News wrote in its editorial opposing the measure:

Agriculture policy, like everything else, has to evolve. What worked or was acceptable yesterday won’t always be the way of the world. Deciding the rules requires all sides sitting down and looking at bona fide research and negotiating in good faith.

But nobody should be for settling food fights in the constitution.

Well put.

It’s for that reason that even the Ohio League of Women Voters is urging a NO vote on Issue 2.

The Plain Dealer put it more simply back in July:

The General Assembly’s rush to add a “livestock standards” amendment to the Ohio Constitution is as unseemly as it is questionable. Someone at the Statehouse needs to be an adult.

Since no one there would, Ohioans need to be the adults this election and vote NO on Issue 2.

READ MORE: Ohio ACT (Against Constitutional Takeover) – the official No On Issue 2 campaign Web site

Gov. Baldacci (D-ME)

Today, the Governor of Maine, John Baldacci, issued one of the most interesting, and wonderful, statements I’ve seen in the marriage debate.  In today’s statement “Placing Challenge of Marriage Law on Ballot,” he said:

“I fully support this legislation, and believe it guarantees that all Maine citizens are treated equally under our State’s civil marriage laws,” Governor Baldacci said. “But I also have a Constitutional obligation to set the date for the election once the Secretary of State has certified that enough signatures have been submitted. I am confident that Maine voters will make the right decision on this important issue when they cast their ballots in the fall.”

Let’s put this in context.  Even in California, no major elected official was willing to jump in front of the Proposition 8 bus in the early days — let alone in governor’s official statement putting the measure on the ballot.  Yet, here in Maine, we have the state’s governor strongly announcing his support for full equality in the state — following passage of the bill earlier this year by a majority of the state’s lawmakers — as he announces that it will be on the fall ballot.

In every news story, Baldacci’s support for equality will be balancing out the news that he signed the papers officially placing the measure on the ballot.

On the other northern end of the country, a King County judge in Washington state today rejected a challenge to that state’s referendum to overturn the domestic partner benefits bill approved earlier this year by its legislature.  The ruling is available here (pdf).

Judge Julie Spector found:

In summary, under Washington case law it is unclear whether there are any limits to the Secretary of State’s discretion as long as he has chosen to accept petitions rather than reject them.

Finally, under Shrempp and Community Care Coalition, supra, this court has no authority to prevent the Secretary of State from accepting these petitions in light of their questionable validity. Only after certification can opponents of a referendum challenge it in court, and then only in compliance with RCW 29A.72.240. Therefore, any challenge to the Secretary of State’s certification of a referendum must be brought in Superior Court in Thurston County within five days.

Under the provision cited by Judge Spector, Washington Families Standing Together (WFST), the pro-equality group opposing the referendum must:

apply to the superior court of Thurston county for a citation requiring the secretary of state to submit the petition to said court for examination, and for a writ of mandate compelling the certification of the measure and petition, or for an injunction to prevent the certification thereof . . . .

Although Spector announced some concerns with many of the parts of the petition-gathering process and subsequent Secretary of State actions accepting some of the petitions and signers, it appears that all that is dicta to be re-litigated assuming a case is filed in Thurston County.

Besides being able to cite to Judge Spector’s ruling — both in court and in the campaign — I’m not quite sure, if state law is this clear, why the case was filed in King County at all.  WFST’s lead lawyer, David Burman (bio), looks like quite a superstar from Perkins Coie, though, so I’d assume there is some rationale for what appears at first glance to be a failed-from-the-start challenge — at least in this venue.  I’m awaiting more information on this case from folks with WFST.

Hanson

In the National Organization for Marriage’s first attempt to influence an election, Democrat Curt Hanson defeated the NOM-backed Stephen Burgmeier tonight in the 90th House District in Iowa.

Earlier in the race, The Iowa Independent reported:

According to a report filed with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board yesterday, the anti-gay marriage group National Organization for Marriage has purchased $86,060 worth of television and radio ads to support Stephen Burgmeier, the Republican candidate in the special election in Iowa House District 90.

Joe.My.God posted the ad here that NOM ran in the race:

The Iowa Secretary of State tonight reports that Hanson won:

Congrats to Hanson and all Iowans who support equality on tonight’s win.

Creigh Deeds

The Washington Post has shown the importance, not of itself as itself, but of the power of persuasive reasoning when it reaches thousands upon thousands of people.

How so?

Well, the story ends with today’s front page of the Post and began many, many years ago for Creigh Deeds.  But, the inflection point for the rural Virginia state senator — the just elected Democratic nominee for Virginia’s gubernatorial race this fall — appears to have been the editorial published May 22 in The Washington Post.  It is persuasive without being pushy, biting without being nasty.  It makes an argument rather than forcing a position:

In 18 years in the General Assembly, Mr. Deeds has time and again supported measures that might be unpopular with his rural constituency but that are the right thing to do, for Northern Virginia and the state as a whole. He has demonstrated an understanding of the problems that matter most, the commitment to solve them and the capacity to get things done. Mr. Deeds may not be the obvious choice in the June 9 primary, but he’s the right one.

It is what good editorial writing, opinion writing, blogging, conversation . . . should be.

Before you think too much about what Creigh Deeds’ win means for Obama, for the Democrats or Republicans, or even for Virginia, if you’ve not yet done so, read this editorial.

* * * * *

MORE: Creigh Deeds for Virginia Governor — campaign Web site

Hundreds of Cuccinelli supporters brandished yellow flags of Revolutionary War origin, emblazoned with “Don’t Tread on Me” as he promised to be a conservative attorney general if elected, declaring himself pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment and pro-land ownership. “If you want an A.G. with a record of defending the Constitution as it was written, I’m your candidate,” he said.

Mmhmm. Cuccinelli beat out former Arlington School Board Chairman Dave Foster for the Republican nod.  On the Democratic side, Delegate Steve Shannon (Virginia’s lower chamber is called the House of Delegates) of Fairfax, is unopposed for the nomination, which officially will come following the June 9 primary.

I, meanwhile, am recovering from a 10-day trip out of Ohio and through 10 other states and one District (via car, train and/or foot) — CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VA and WV — and will be back tomorrow.