Connect with us

National

Dem leading in Iowa Senate special election: poll

Mathis has 52-46 lead over Golding

Published

on

Liz Mathis

A new poll finds a Democratic candidate running for Iowa State Senate has an six-point lead in a special election that could impact marriage equality in the Hawkeye State.

The numbers published Monday by Public Policy Polling reveal Democrat Liz Mathis leads Republican Cindy Golding by a margin of 52-46. In an election set for Tuesday, Mathis, a former news anchor for an Iowa TV station, and Golding, a businessperson, are competing to represent Iowa’s 18th district in the Iowa State Senate, where Democrats hold a narrow 25-24 majority.

The outcome of the election could have an impact on Iowa marriage equality because a Republican win would create a tie in a leadership and could take control of the chamber away from Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, who’s vowed that a state constitutional amendment overturning marriage equality won’t come up as long as he remains leader of the chamber.

The plan for Senate leadership if the special election results in a tie remains in question. During a previous tie in 2005 and 2006, Democrats and Republicans alternatively shared power in the Senate and a rule was put in place ensuring no legislation could come up without consent of both parties. But Republican Leader Paul McKinley has reportedly said he won’t agree to such a rule this time around.

Same-sex marriage in Iowa was instituted in 2009 by order of the state Supreme Court. In February, the Republican-controlled Iowa House passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, or even marriage-like unions. If Democrats lose control of the Senate, a vote could held in that chamber and move the amendment closer to ratification. The amendment would have to be approved twice by the State Legislature in different sessions before heading to voters.

According to PPP, Mathis’ lead suggests she’s “just a stronger candidate” than Golding because responders were split evenly, 44-44, on whether they’d rather have Democrats or Republicans controlling the State Senate. The poll finds Mathis is taking 16 percent of the vote away from Golding.

Additionally, although media reports have framed this election as being marriage equality, the polls suggest voters in the district don’t see it that way. A majority plan on voting for Mathis even though a plurality, 46 percent, say same-sex marriage should be illegal while 42 percent back marriage rights for gay couples. Only 11 percent of responders identified marriage as the most important factor for them, while other says it’s something else.

According to PPP, dissatisfaction with Republican Gov. Terry Branstad may be driving voters in the district to support the Democratic candidate. The poll found that 39 percent of voters approve of him, while 42 percent disapprove.

Dean Debnam, president of public policy polling, said the race is still close enough that it could “go either way” as he acknowledged Mathis currently holds the lead.

“It looks like Democrats will probably hold onto control of the Iowa State Senate and if that is the case it will be a reflection of dissatisfaction with Gov. Branstad,” Debnam said.

Troy Price, executive director of One Iowa, said the poll makes him “cautiously optimistic,” but maintained the only poll that matters is “the one that comes in tomorrow night” after the election.

“I think this poll shows that in spite of the best efforts by the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, and the Family Leader, marriage equality and other social issues are not the deciding issues in the eyes of most voters,” Price said. “Rather, people want a candidate that will help bring our state together and meet our common challenges, like growing our economy and creating good jobs.  That is what people are looking for in their next senator, and it appears that many voters have decided who that person is.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports

27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.

In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.

The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.

“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.

He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”

“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”

Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”

Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House

University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

Published

on

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon (Screen capture: C-SPAN)

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”

The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.

“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”

Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”

Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”

“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”

Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.

Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.

The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.

Continue Reading

New York

Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade

One of the victims remains in critical condition

Published

on

The Stonewall National Memorial in New York on June 19, 2024. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.

According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.

The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.

The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.

In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.

The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.

New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.

“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”

Continue Reading

Popular