| |||||||||||||||||||
Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Veto Referendum | |||||||||||||||||||
| Voting system | First Past the Post | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Results | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
 County results Municipality results Precinct results
| |||||||||||||||||||
| Source:Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth | |||||||||||||||||||
TheMassachusetts Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Initiative is astate-wide referendum passed by Massachusetts voters in the6 November 2018 mid-term election that prohibits discrimination inpublic accommodations on the basis ofgender identity. The vote upholds language which was already present in the state anti-discrimination statute, defeating an attempt to veto it by public referendum. It is the first state-wideanti-discrimination statute passed by referendum supportingtransgender rights in the United States.[1][2]
On July 7, 2016, “An Act Relative to Transgender Anti-Discrimination” (Senate Bill 2407) was passed by a voice vote in the Senate and 117-36 in the House. It was signed byGovernor of MassachusettsCharlie Baker the next day. It took effect on October 1, 2016. It amended Section 92A of chapter 272 of the General Laws to cover "gender identity" in "any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement that lawfully segregates or separates access...based on a person’s sex" such that all individuals shall be treated "consistent with the person’s gender identity."[3] The places of "public accommodation" where discrimination is forbidden include, according to GLAD, "restaurants, libraries, hotels, malls, public transportation, and beyond," as well as "bathrooms and locker rooms."[4]
Keep MA Safe opposed the 2016 anti-discrimination law and advocated its repeal. A press release on their website dated September 28, 2016, said that "hundreds of volunteers" had met the deadline to provide the 32,375 signatures required to get the question on the ballot.[5]
Their campaign finance report filed September 7, 2018, indicated that the group raised $286,000 since the campaign began in 2017. Of this, $106,300 was raised in 2018.[6]
An older group,MassResistance, founded by Brian Camenker in 1995, feared that Keep MA Safe's campaign was inadequate. One month before the election, MassResistancebegan its own splinter campaign with its preferred, "admittedly more inflammatory alternative" message that gender is determined by sex, that transgender identity is a mental disorder, and that there should be no civil rights based on transgender identity.[7]
Several days after the election, MassResistance published an article undercutting Keep MA Safe's main argument. The claim that transgender women pose a threat in public bathrooms, MassResistance alleged, was an invention. MassResistance said that this "largely contrived" position had been used in the Massachusetts political campaign mainly because it appealed to emotion and had been used successfully whenthe city of Houston voted against housing and employment rights three years earlier; however, it had failed in Massachusetts. "Our side concocted the 'bathroom safety' male predator argument," MassResistance claimed.[7]
Freedom For All Massachusetts, also known as "Yes on 3," formed to campaign for the "Yes" vote to preserve the existing anti-discrimination law.
The political advocacy coalition included:
Freedom for All Massachusetts' campaign finance report filed September 7, 2018, indicated that the group raised $2.7 million since the campaign began in 2017. Of this, $1.8 million was raised in 2018.[6]
"Yes" was endorsed by the city councils ofBoston,Cambridge, Somerville, Melrose, Arlington, Lexington,[20] andNorthampton.[21] It was "wholeheartedly" endorsed byThe Boston Globe newspaper,[22] andThe Salem News also urged a "Yes" vote.[23]
The vote on November 6, 2018, affirmed the law,[24] 67.8 percent to 32.2 percent (1,781,041 to 846,804).[25]
Amira Hasenbush, Andrew R. Flores, and Jody L. Herman of theWilliams Institute at theUCLA School of Law determined that the anti-discrimination laws in several cities did not affect the local rate of crimes reported in restrooms. They examined Massachusetts cities before and after they passed such laws (which the cities had done to protect transgender people before the 2016 anti-discrimination law was applied statewide) as well as Massachusetts cities that never passed any such law. The study was published inSexuality Research and Social Policy in July 2018.[26][27][28]
A 2013 study of transgender and gender-nonconforming adult residents of Massachusetts found that 65% of respondents had experienced discrimination in public accommodations (in some cases, regarding bathrooms) within the previous year.[29]
| Date(s) conducted | Yes | No | Undecided | Lead | Margin of error | Sample | Conducted by | Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| October 25–28, 2018 | 68% | 26% | 7% | 42% | ± 4.4% | 502 likely voters | The MassINC Polling Group | Landline and cell phone live interviews |
| October 24–27, 2018 | 68% | 28% | 4% | 40% | ± 4.4% | 500 likely voters | Suffolk University Political Research CenterArchived 2018-10-31 at theWayback Machine | Landline and cell phone live interviews |
| September 13–17, 2018 | 73.2% | 17.4% | 9.2% | 55.8% | - | 500 likely voters | Suffolk University Political Research CenterArchived 2018-09-20 at theWayback Machine | |
| June 14, 2018 | 48.8% | 37.2% | 14% | 11.6% | - | 500 likely voters | Suffolk University Political Research CenterArchived 2018-06-15 at theWayback Machine | |
| May 22–26, 2018 | 52% | 38% | 11% | 14% | ± 4.4% | 501 registered voters | The MassINC Polling Group | Landline and cell phone live interviews |
100% reporting
| By entity |
| ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| By type |
| ||||||||||||||
| Movements | |||||||||||||||
| Related | |||||||||||||||
