District of Columbia
D.C. debates how to cope with crime as reform bill heads to Senate
House Democrats join GOP in voting to overturn measure
Just over three weeks after the D.C. Council overturned Mayor Muriel Bowser’s veto of a controversial criminal code reform bill that the Council had passed unanimously last November, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 9 voted 250 to 173 to overturn the D.C. bill.
In a development that surprised some D.C. political observers, including LGBTQ activists, 31 House Democrats were among those joining Republicans in voting to overturn the sweeping 450-page Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022.
On the same day that it voted to overturn the crime bill, the House voted 260 to 162, with 42 House Democrats voting yes, to pass a second disapproval resolution calling for overturning a bill approved by the D.C. Council to allow non-citizens to vote in local D.C. elections.
Both bills must now go to the U.S. Senate, where Democrats have a slim majority and where just a few Democratic senators voting to overturn either of the two bills, including the crime bill, could result in passage of the disapproval measure. It would then go to President Joe Biden, who would be faced with the choice of vetoing the measures or allowing one or both of the two D.C. bills to be overturned.
The president has said he opposes both of the two disapproval resolutions in the House, but he has not said whether he would veto the disapproval measures.
Most of those who have expressed concern over the criminal code reform bill, including Bowser, D.C. Police Chief Robert Contee, and the Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C., have said they support 95 percent of the bill’s provisions.
Supporters, including D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson (D-At-Large), point out that the voluminous bill was methodically developed over the past 16 years by the nonpartisan D.C. Criminal Code Reform Commission to modernize the city’s criminal code that has not been significantly changed since 1901.
Mendelson and D.C. Council member Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), who headed the Council committee that drafted the legislation, strongly dispute claims that the bill would result in increased crime in the city or that it would hamper efforts by police to curtail crime.
The mayor has said her opposition centers around several of the bill’s provisions that, among other things, would eliminate most mandatory minimum prison sentences, reduce maximum sentences for crimes such as burglaries, carjackings, and robberies, and allow jury trials for all misdemeanor cases in which a prison sentence is possible.
Critics say allowing a jury trial for most misdemeanor cases would overwhelm the D.C. Superior Court that they say already has too few judges to handle its criminal case load. Under the city’s 1971 Home Rule Act approved by Congress, the U.S. president appoints all D.C. court judges, and the U.S. Senate must confirm the appointments.
Supporters of the criminal code reform measure point out that it is currently drafted so it does not take effect until 2025, which they say will give the court system time to adapt to the new criminal code. But opponents, including the mayor, say that would not prevent the problems that they say the bill as currently written will bring about when it takes effect.
“This bill does not make us safer,” said Bowser in announcing her decision to veto the bill.
“While no one believes that penalties alone will solve crime and violence right now, we must be very intentional about messages that we are sending to our community, including prosecutors and judges,” the mayor said in a statement. “People, we know, are tired of violence and right now our focus must be on victims and preventing more people from becoming victims,” she said.
Bowser added that the bill would weaken what she said was an already lenient sentence for illegal gun possession by reducing the maximum sentence for carrying a pistol without a license and being a convicted felon in possession of a gun.
She has expressed strong opposition to Congress stepping in to overturn the bill, saying that it should be left up to the city to make any changes needed to improve the bill. Bowser last week submitted to the Council legislation calling for changes in the bill, including removing provisions in the current bill that would lower maximum penalties and allow jury trials for most misdemeanor cases.
Among the most outspoken critics of the criminal code revision bill has been the D.C. Police Union, whose chairperson, Gregg Pemberton, said the legislation would result in “violent crime rates exploding more than they already have.”
Most local LGBTQ organizations have not taken an official position on the bill. Capital Stonewall Democrats, the city’s largest local LGBTQ political group, has yet to take a position on the bill itself and most likely will not do so at this time, according to Monika Nemeth, the group’s recently elected president.
Nemeth said threats by Congress to overturn this and other D.C. bills are of great concern to the organization, and it reconfirms Capital Stonewall Democrats’ strong support for D.C. statehood.
Adam Savit, president of Log Cabin Republicans of D.C., the local chapter of the national LGBTQ Republican organization Log Cabin Republicans, said the local chapter also has not taken an official position on the D.C. criminal code bill. But he said in an email to the Blade that “we generally sympathize with the sentiments of the D.C. GOP,” which has come out against the legislation on grounds that it will result in a higher rate of crime in the city.
“Decreased penalties mean a decreased deterrent, and it will absolutely lead to increased criminality and further undermine the ability of the police to keep order,” Savit said in expressing his own opinion. “The way to protect LGBTQ citizens is to set credible penalties for violent crime and enforce the law,” he said.
The DC Center for the LGBT Community, which oversees its longstanding LGBTQ Anti-Violence Project, did not respond to a request by the Blade for comment on the crime bill.
The D.C. Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, however, has taken a position in strong support of the measure.
“We applaud the D.C. Council for enacting the Revised Criminal Code Act, an important modernization of our criminal laws that is the product of over 15 years of careful deliberation,” said GLAA President Tyrone Hanley in a statement to the Blade. Hanley said the statement was approved by the GLAA board.
“We have long known that mandatory minimums do not make communities safer, but exacerbate mass incarceration,” the GLAA statement says. “The larger symbolic reductions in maximum sentences for certain crimes bring them in-line with actual practice [by judges], plus research demonstrates that the length of sentence is not an effective deterrent to most crime,” the GLAA statement continues.
“We should not give in to right-wing narratives that some wish to use to exert power over D.C. and return to ineffective and harmful approaches,” the statement concludes.
Longtime D.C. gay activist and former GLAA President Rick Rosendall has taken a similar position, saying in an email to the Blade that opposition to the bill is based on “alarmist talking points.” Rosendall pointed to the assertion by D.C. Council member Kenyan McDuffie (I-At-Large) that some provisions in the bill actually raise penalties and create new categories of crimes that make it easier for prosecutors to prove.
Another longtime LGBTQ rights advocate and Democratic Party activist Peter Rosenstein has taken a differing view. He says he fully agrees with Bowser’s decision to veto the crime bill and said the Council should not have passed the separate bill to allow non-U.S. citizen D.C. residents the right to vote in local D.C. elections.
“Lowering the maximum possible penalties for burglaries, carjackings (now at their highest) and robberies, while residents are seeing a crime wave, is irresponsible and won’t make the city safer,” Rosenstein said in a Washington Blade commentary. “If Congress takes action on these bills, the Council must accept the full blame,” he said. “While Congress shouldn’t interfere with the D.C. government (I have long advocated for budget and legislative autonomy for the District) we don’t have it yet.”
D.C. Congressional Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) has strongly criticized the House for passing the disapproval resolutions calling for overturning the crime bill and the noncitizen voting rights bill. She said she is alarmed that Republican members of the House and Senate are once again attempting to intervene and usurp the will of the democratically elected D.C. local government.
Norton noted that since Congress passed the D.C. Home Rule Act of 1971, creating the city’s elected mayor and Council – with Congress retaining the ability to make the final decision on all laws passed by the D.C. government – Congress has only used its power to overturn a D.C. law on three occasions over the past 40 years.
One of the three laws overturned by Congress was the Sexual Assault Reform Act of 1981, which called for repealing the city’s antiquated sodomy law that made it a crime for consenting same-sex adults and consenting heterosexual adult to engage in oral or anal sodomy. It took another 12 years for the Council to pass legislation repealing the D.C. sodomy law in 1993. At that time gay then-U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) played a lead role in persuading Congress not to overturn the sodomy repeal law once again.
But with states throughout the country now passing or considering anti-LGBTQ bills, including bills targeting transgender people and drag performances, the emboldened action by the U.S. House on Feb. 7 to overturn two bills passed by the D.C. Council raises the possibility that GOP lawmakers in Congress might attempt to impose anti-LGBTQ policies on the District.
Norton has pointed out that although Congress has so far overturned only three D.C. laws, it has also imposed restrictions on the city through its power to control the city’s budget and spending. Without needing approval by the Senate, the GOP-controlled House has in the past — and can at this time — add hostile provisions to the city’s annual budget bill.
In recent years, the House has used the budget process to ban D.C. funding for abortions for women in financial need and to block the city from allowing the sale of marijuana as part of D.C.’s legislation – which Congress allowed the city to pass – decriminalizing the possession of marijuana.
Most LGBTQ activists contacted by the Blade said they haven’t had a chance to read the entire 450-page Revised Criminal Code Act, but from what they have learned about the bill from media reports leads them to believe it most likely would not impact LGBTQ people any more or less than the overall D.C. population.
Some activists, however, point out that transgender women of color have been targeted for crimes in the D.C. area, including murder, in greater numbers than others in the community. And the release by D.C. police in January of the city’s data on reported hate crimes in 2022 show that similar to the past 10 years or more, LGBTQ people were targeted for hate crimes in greater numbers than other categories of victims of hate crimes such as race, ethnicity, or religion.
“I’m not certain what contributes to the uptick in some types of calls that we’ve seen or some of the crimes that we’ve seen,” said D.C. Police Chief Robert Contee in response to a question from the Blade about what, if anything, police can do to address hate crimes targeting LGBTQ people.
“But our commitment is to investigate those cases thoroughly and hold people accountable when we identify people who are responsible for those types of crimes,” Contee said. “Our LGBT community is something special, not just to Washington, D.C. but to the Metropolitan Police Department,” he said. “They have a strong relationship with our Special Liaison Branch,” he noted, which oversees the department’s LGBT Liaison Unit.
“So, we’re going to continue to do the things we need to do to make sure that those calls are coming in and people are trusting us to report these crimes to us,” Contee told the Blade. “And again, we do everything we can to investigate those crimes.”
District of Columbia
Being a female firefighter comes with unique risks, and rewards
Well-fitting gear can be a safety issue
Firefighters are known for running into danger to save lives, but they may face another danger after the fire is out. Studies on firefighter health point to rising concerns about cancer risk, mental health struggles, and exposure to toxic “forever chemicals” found in firefighting foam and protective gear.
Nearly 40 percent of firefighters report “clinically significant levels” of anxiety or depression and 10 percent report this level of posttraumatic stress disorder, according to a national survey of public safety workers published last year in the journal Psychological Services. Lawmakers from several states are also pushing for stronger federal protections and compensation for firefighters exposed to hazardous chemicals on the job.
Female firefighters can also face a higher risk of injury, heat-related illness, and even greater carcinogen exposure due to ill-fitting equipment that wasn’t designed for their bodies. Their risk of psychological and workplace stress is higher, as well, due in part to the isolation of being in a slim minority in fire departments across the country. Only 5 to 9 percent of firefighters are women.
To understand the risks and rewards of being a female firefighter, Youthcast Media Group interviewed Connie Reid, a firefighter with the DC Fire and EMS Department. Meredith McQuerry, an associate professor of textile science at Florida State University who studies how to improve firefighting gear and other personal protective equipment to better protect women in the fire service, also responded to student questions via email. Reid’s and McQuerry’s responses have been edited for clarity and length.
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN YOUR CAREER, AND WHAT DREW YOU TO IT?
REID: I’ve been a firefighter for seven years. I wasn’t sure if I wanted to be a firefighter or police officer, but I do have uncles that were firefighters, so I leaned towards the firefighter side. So I’m happy I made that decision.
McQUEERY: During my PhD, a colleague and I realized we never saw any female firefighters come through our research center. We began looking in the literature and found very few studies focused on PPE for women in the fire service.
DOES FIREFIGHTING GEAR ACTUALLY FIT WOMEN, AND DOES IT MATTER?
REID: In D.C., if you have an issue, you just send an email, and we have people who will properly size us. I don’t think any female that I know has complained about gear not fitting.
McQUERRY: Wearing protective clothing designed for the opposite sex can lead to restricted mobility, greater opportunity for thermal and particulate exposure, and a lack of functionality that can mean life or death, such as accessing a tool in a pocket that is completely closed off due to anthropometric differences.
There is a culture in the fire service, and especially for women in a male-dominated field, that suppresses the likelihood of advocating for better-fitting gear. While not within our area of expertise, we have done our best to raise awareness for the need for properly fitting gear for women in the fire service and to champion their self-advocacy.
Female firefighters report the inability to throw a ladder, step onto the truck, or cinch their pants down adequately due to ill-fitting protective clothing and equipment. One example is the interference between the helmet and the self-contained breathing apparatus which prevents many female firefighters from looking upward to throw a ladder without first twisting their neck sideways to avoid the lid of the helmet knocking into the respirator bottle. This type of modification can lead to acute and long term injury.
ARE THESE PROBLEMS MOSTLY ABOUT COMFORT? WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF SAFETY RISKS OR DANGERS THAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN GEAR DOES NOT FIT PROPERLY?
McQUERRY: All firefighters need properly fitting PPE as the primary threats center around carcinogen exposure, musculoskeletal injuries, and heat-related illnesses. For example, you have to work harder to do the same task in ill-fitting, mobility restrictive gear, which leads to faster metabolic heat production and build-up in the suit, quickening the onset of fatigue and other HRI.
Our previous work led us to hypothesize that oversized gear for women allowed for more particulate ingress in the interface areas including the collar/hood, sleeve/glove, boot/pant, and coat/pant areas. A recently funded study is allowing us to quantify this by correlating the gear fit of women’s structural turnout gear with their cancer biomarkers collected via urinalysis pre- and post-live fire burns.
HOW DO FIREFIGHTERS TRAIN TO STAY SAFE DURING DANGEROUS SITUATIONS?
REID: So we have trainings all the time. Safety is the number one priority of the job. They make sure they let us know all the time. We have annual trainings. We have quarterly trainings. We have online training if you need refreshers.
We are both on a medical side and a fire side so as a D.C. firefighter, you come in, and they teach you. You bring a positive attitude and just determination, because some people really don’t understand it’s not just physical, it’s mental. You have to be mentally prepared.
WERE THERE ANY FINDINGS IN YOUR RESEARCH THAT SURPRISED YOU?
McQUEERY: Yes, we were surprised to find in our nationwide survey [of 2,000 people] a few years ago that 15 percent of U.S. structural and 21 percent of wildland female firefighters sometimes or always leave off an essential item of their PPE due to limited mobility. Specifically, the turnout coat and pants or wildland shirt and pants were the most noted for being intentionally not worn, which is very surprising and concerning.
HAVE FIRE DEPARTMENTS OR EQUIPMENT COMPANIES STARTED MAKING IMPROVEMENTS SINCE YOUR STUDY, AND IF SO, WHY DO YOU THINK FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT HAS TAKEN SO LONG TO ADAPT TO WOMEN FIREFIGHTERS?
McQUEERY: It wasn’t until the post-Me Too movement that our research in this area was able to gain traction and support. It is a decades (or centuries) old problem of there not being enough “market share” for the 5-11 percent of the fire service. However, we have seen tremendous growth and innovation in this area since we began our funded research in 2019. Now, nearly every single structural firefighting manufacturer offers women’s protective clothing.
When we began this research, only two manufacturers offered women’s turnout gear. Now, to our knowledge, all but one [seven out of eight] does, which is a significant advancement across the industry. There is still much work to do in fine tuning these designs to fit the specific anthropometrics of female firefighters.
DO YOU WORRY ABOUT THE LONG TERM EFFECTS OF BEING A FIREFIGHTER?
REID: Do I worry? I wouldn’t say worry. I’m more mindful of it, because the material of today is different from years ago. It burns faster, and then there’s more chemically made things than like natural resources. So I’m aware of that. They also have training teaching us about things like that. And there’s smoke exposures, there’s a health risk like sleep deprivation or sleep disruption.
WHAT KIND OF EDUCATION OR TRAINING DO YOU NEED TO BECOME A FIREFIGHTER?
REID: So there’s a few routes to get onto the job. The cadet route would be … you have to be 18 to 21 years old, you have to be a D.C. resident, have a high school diploma from a D.C. school (public or private), or have a GED, and you have to have at least a learner’s permit at the time that you are applying for the job. To be a recruit, you have to be at least 18 years old, have a full driver’s license, (not just a permit), and you also have to have a high school diploma or GED. The third way [is as] a paramedic, and you have to come on the job with your paramedic license.
WHAT’S YOUR ADVICE FOR YOUNG WOMEN CONSIDERING THIS PATH?
REID: I would say, welcome. Come on the job. We need females. I always think it’s awesome when we get young ladies that are interested in the fire side. A lot of females just only want to do EMS. There’s nothing against EMS, but the fire side is pretty cool, too. Don’t sell yourself short, just try to do both of them. It’s a very rewarding job. You have to also mentally prepare yourself and physically prepare yourself. But I think the job is a great experience. I wish I would have started younger myself.
Mariyah Matthews is in the class of 2027 at Bard High School Early College DC, one of Youthcast Media Group’s journalism class partners. Sarah Gandluri is a YMG intern who is studying political science and global studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
District of Columbia
Capital Pride chair resigns from board after just 10 months
Anna Jinkerson ‘taking step back to move forward’
Anna Jinkerson, who has served as chair of D.C.’s Capital Pride Alliance Board of Directors for the past 10 months and has served on the board for the past four years, confirmed she is resigning from the board effective Sept. 30.
Capital Pride Alliance serves as the lead organizer of D.C.’s annual LGBTQ Pride events.
“I am taking a step back to move forward and plan to stay engaged in the community,” Jinkerson told the Washington Blade in a statement. “Serving as a volunteer leader during a period of transition following World Pride was both an honor and a challenge,” she said.
“Throughout my tenure, I focused on strengthening accountability, improving communications, supporting staff and volunteers, and helping position the organization for long-term success,” she told the Blade in her statement. “Meaningful organizational progress requires collaboration, dedication, and a shared commitment to serving the community, and I am proud of the work accomplished during this period.”
In February of this year, during Jinkerson’s tenure on the board, Capital Pride announced it had expanded the size of its board from 12 to 25 members.
Around that same time one of the existing board members, transgender activist Taylor Lianne Chandler, announced in a letter to fellow board members that the Blade obtained from an anonymous sender that she was resigning from the board. Among her reasons for resigning, she said in the letter, was the board’s failure to address “sexual misconduct” within the Capital Pride organization.
In the letter, which she confirmed for the Blade was authentic, Chandler said she and other board members raised “credible concerns” of alleged sexual misconduct within the Capital Pride organization and the board chose not to adequately respond to those concerns.
Chandler told the Blade a Capital Pride investigation identified an individual implicated in a “pattern” of sexual harassment related behavior, but said she was bound by a Non-Disclosure Agreement that applied to all board members and she could not provide further details.
When the Blade contacted Capital Pride for comment on Chandler’s allegations, Jinkerson responded with a statement saying Capital Pride was addressing her concerns.
“When concerns are brought to CPA, we act quickly and appropriately to address them,” Jinkerson said. “As we continue to grow our organization, we’re proactively strengthening the policies and procedures that shape our systems, our infrastructure, and the support we provide to our team and partners,” she said.
In her statement to the Blade this week commenting on her planned resignation from the Capital Pride board, Jinkerson appeared to refer to the concern raised by Chandler.
“I am proud to have advocated for sexual harassment training, supported staff and volunteers when concerns were raised, engaged community leaders in important conversations, and helped advance practices that strengthen safety, transparency, and accountability,” she said.
“As I step away from board service, I do so with gratitude for the opportunity to serve and with confidence in the organization’s future,” she added. “I am taking a step back to move forward, and I look forward to remaining actively engaged in our community and continuing to support efforts that advance equality, belonging, and pride for all.”
District of Columbia
Over 2,000 turn out for Hands Around the Kennedy Center protest
Drag performer Tara Hoot serves as MC, Gay Men’s Chorus of DC performs, attendees shout for Trump to keep ‘hands off’ Kennedy Center
More than 2,000 supporters of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts turned out on Sept. 18, for a rally in support of the performing arts center and a vocal protest against President Donald Trump’s threats to permanently close the center and possibly demolish it.
The event was organized by a group called Hands Off the Arts, which initially called for participants to form a “human chain” around the Kennedy Center’s main building following a rally on the plaza in front of the building.
However, due to a decision by the Trump-controlled Kennedy Center’s board of trustees to close the center earlier in the week and install fencing around part of the building, participants could only form the chain around part of the building, according to organizers.
Drag performer Tara Hoot, who co-organized the event and served as master of ceremonies for the rally preceding the “human chain,” said the large turnout could have fully surrounded the building at least twice had the fencing not prevented a full encirclement.
Among the musicians and singing groups that performed at the rally was the Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington, which, like other rally performers, had performed at the Kennedy Center in past years. They drew loud applause after singing one of their favorite songs from the Broadway musical show Ragtime, which includes the lyrics, “Will justice be demanded by 10 million men? Make them hear you. When they hear you, I’ll be near you again.”
View on Threads
Prior to their performance, Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington’s artistic director, Thea Kano, spoke at the rally, reminding participants that shortly after the Trump takeover of the center last year, Kennedy Center officials cancelled a concert the chorus was scheduled to perform there for World Pride 2025.
A Kennedy Center spokesperson said the cancellation was due to a scheduling conflict, but chorus members and LGBTQ activists believe it resulted from policies put in place by Trump and his leadership team at the Kennedy Center following Trump’s statements that he would end controversial “woke” performances that he claimed the majority of Americans disapprove of.
“Now this building sits empty in silence,” Kano told the crowd at the rally. “Let us raise our voices together and bring back the Kennedy Center as it was intended, a place where American culture could be celebrated and elevated, embracing the vibrancy with the spectrum of identify without censure and without politics,” she said.
Among the others who spoke at the rally were U.S. Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), U.S. Rep. Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.), and D.C. Councilmember Robert White (D-At-Large).
Most speakers, along with LGBTQ participants in the hands-around-the-building event expressed strong opposition to Trump’s demand that the Kennedy Center name be changed from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts to the Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
At Trump’s request, his appointed board initially made that name change and placed Trump’s name on the front wall of the building along with the Kennedy name. But following legal action taken by opponents who pointed out that Congress must approve such a name change, a judge ordered the removal of Trump’s name from the building. Trump has said he will take steps to reverse that order and has said he will stop plans to renovate the Kennedy Center building and possibly demolish it if his name is not restored in the Kennedy’s Center’s official name.
Throughout the Sept. 18 rally, LGBTQ participants repeatedly responded to the Trump threats by shouting, “Hands Off!”
Chris Raleigh, one of the founders of Hands Off the Arts and a lead organizer of the Sept. 18 event at the Kennedy Center who spoke at the event told the Washington Blade that more similar events are being planned and he welcomes the support the event has received from the LGBTQ community.
“The LGBTQ community was here first, and we’re following them,” he said. “They’ve been the spearhead; they’ve been the vanguard. And I’m so thankful for heroes like Tara Hoot,” he said, adding, “It’s because they know what it means and how this is a safe place – the theater – for many LGBTQ people.”
Being a female firefighter comes with unique risks, and rewards
Writing a play about Lincoln leads down a rabbit hole to a closet
Trump-appointed judge restores White House TV pool access
Philadelphia event to launch 2026 LGBT History Month
