NYT covers trans voting challenges; blows it

I was going to write about the Nov. 4 New York Times article on voting difficulties faced by transgender voters, but Alex Blaze at Bilerico pretty much said it:

There are serious issues for many transgender people when it comes to voting. Their name might have changed since registering to vote, states with stringent photo ID laws (like Indiana) can pose a problem for trans folk whose gender expression doesn't match their drivers' license, and plain old transphobia of some poll workers might intimidate transgender people who have a right to cast a vote.

But you wouldn't know that from the article. Someone who's unfamiliar with the topic would probably think that transwomen are just more concerned with getting their hair done.

It didn't look like Ms. Carver would cast a vote this election, which was just as well to her because she was headed out for the evening and had a scarf around her head and large hoop earrings in her hair and tight clothes on her tall slim body. The official told Mr. Braxton that Ms. Carver could apply for a provisional ballot or even try going before a judge before the polls closed at 9 p.m., to try to get on the ballot.[...]

"That gives you an idea of her priorities," Father Braxton said, shaking his head. "She wanted to get her hair done."

I'm sure there were plenty of transwomen who wanted to vote in New York City who could have been profiled in this article. Or the Times could have done an article about voter apathy and used Michelle Carver as an example.

So good on the Times for at least referring to Michelle Carver with female pronouns and a female honorific. But this issue deserves serious coverage, not condescending commentary on a someone who isn't even facing the problems outlined in the beginning of the article.

Argh.

MD high court nixes transgender ballot question

Today the Maryland Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) ordered removed from the November ballot a question that would have affirmed or repealed Montgomery County's antidiscrimination protection for transgender people in housing, employment and public accommodations. The court has issued a short order (PDF) , and says it will issue an opinion soon.

The ordinance (PDF) was passed unanimously last fall by the county council, the Board of Elections ruled that a citizens group called Citizens for Responsible Government (which had previously challenged the county's sex ed curriculum as too inclusive) had collected enough signatures to place it on the ballot. Voters would be required to affirm or repeal the ordinance.

The lawsuit, brought by a grassroots group called Basic Rights Montgomery on behalf of a number of voters, alleged that many approved signatures were invalid, and that the state under-calculated the number of required signatures. The trial court found the latter claim meritorious, but said the claim was time-barred. The high court presumably rejected the time-barred argument, and we'll soon see its reasons why.

I've been proud to volunteer for Basic Rights Montgomery, and am gratified by this victory. The group that sought the ballot question, CRG, has been criticized by council members for their deceptive and mean-spirited tactics, most significantly telling voters that the law would require unisex bathrooms throughout the county and representing trans people as sexual predators. Now the ordinance, which has been on the books for many months and mirrors those in cities and states around the country, can finally go into effect.

It now appears that Gaineville, FL will have the dubious distinction of holding the nation's first voter referendum on the basic civil rights of transgender people; a similar battle is going on there, with no court-ordered resolution in sight. On Gainesville, see this post from back in July at Transgender Workplace Diversity.