There are definitely some things missing here. For example Amy Klobuchar has voted for multiple bills (e.g. ndaa) which have anti trans riders attached to them. I know there are other bills and other politicians when you expand the definition a bit. Ie liberals who have no problem ignoring antitrans stuff in bills but wont vocally speak against trans folks. Neither will they defend trans folks.
And then there are the politicians who when running refuse to have positions. E.g. Bercerra and Kamala Harris whose positions amount to little more than “I will follow the law” when speaking on trans issues.
Be respectful? Okay, sure...to the STAFFER, maybe.
But that alleged Dem politician better hear some extremely angry and scared constituents who are at the point of joining the mass Exodus that has already started.
Oh I completely agree, but the odds of you actually speaking with the politician when you call them are so astronomically low that it's safer to assume you'll be speaking with a staffer.
I work on trans rights issues at the Arizona Capitol, and this list is very inaccurate. It seems like you are counting routine absences against them, but I can confirm that we have a united Democratic caucus in opposing anti-trans bills here.
What I don't understand is this: why does the caucus routinely issue a 'do pass' recommendation for these bills? Or take Senate Bill 1103 from last year (a bathroom bill; status page https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/81595): the House rules committee voted unanimously to send it to the floor, but in the Senate, Democrats did mount their objections in the rules committee.
If I were them, I'd be doing everything in my power to obstruct these bills, just like Democrats in other states are doing. I'll also add that AZ Republicans almost never miss votes on these bills (I checked for that too). I obviously don't want to draw too many conclusions from a 'not voting' status, but do you know what's up with that?
Yeah happy to explain! So when it says "yes" next to the caucus it doesn't mean they're approving of it, it just indicates it was discussed in caucus. Rules votes also are just there to make sure the bill is written properly, but as you noted they usually will pull these and vote no anyway to make the point. As for the absences there's lots of reasons, but in AZ a real dodge would be if the member voted "present", which luckily none have done.
I should also clarify - an absence in AZ is essentially a no vote, since you have to get to a majority of members elected in each chamber, not just those present.
Can a member vote present in AZ? The bill tracking only shows 4 options: ‘yea,’ ‘nay,’ ‘not voting,’ and ‘excused.’
Also, not for nothing but every single anti-trans bill is a constitutional question. Every single one imposes sex-based distinctions. Every single one is discriminatory. At best, they’re sticking with procedure when Republicans clearly aren’t following it. From what I can tell, Arizona is just about the only place this is happening in.
I get that Katie Hobbs has been stopping all of them (I love her) but they shouldn’t be relying on that.
You're absolutely right they shouldn't be relying on that, and they should have pulled that from the consent agenda on rules in the House to oppose. There's definitely room for them to be more forceful, but I just wanted to jump in and make sure you knew it wasn't such a dire picture here!
That’s fair. I don’t think they’re as bad as South Carolina (where almost half of them supported (like, actual yea votes) the bathroom bill recently) but say a GOP governor is elected in AZ; I wouldn’t trust Dems to obstruct the anti-trans agenda there in any way, shape, or form based on how they’re acting.
I definitely would trust them to obstruct as much as they can, but the other piece is that the minority party here has basically no levers to pull on that front beyond hostile amendments, and dragging out floor action until their time limit fully runs out. They do those things now, but I would hope they step up even more if they no longer had Hobbs as a backstop.
You write (and indicate on the map) that Arkansas has the highest percentage of Dems voting for anti-trans legislation, yet I don’t see a link or citation? What are you sources please.
One of the main examples of this was Arkansas House Bill 1796, which formally tied driver's license gender markers to birth certificates (AR used to have self-ID too so this was really harmful) and banned X markers (which AR used to offer as well and was actually the first state to). Here are the vote totals from that:
Other notable ones include the 2025 parental rights bill House Bill 1669 (3 defections in the House) and 2023 bathroom ban House Bill 1156 (8 defections).
I'll add that with one exception, all of these Dems have done this more than once and a few have actually voted FOR these things. Also, being "non voting" is a known thing that AR Dems are doing to not vote on controversial things.
We’ve had a Republican supermajority for ten years at least. The X marker ban on drivers licenses was imposed by our Republican governor Sarah Huckabee.
All the No votes on HB 1796 are Dems, all the N/V are Dems (which yes isn’t helpful). I see 2 Dems out of the House vote w the Republicans. Are the N/V and 2 Yes votes what you mark as making AR the worst?
There are definitely some things missing here. For example Amy Klobuchar has voted for multiple bills (e.g. ndaa) which have anti trans riders attached to them. I know there are other bills and other politicians when you expand the definition a bit. Ie liberals who have no problem ignoring antitrans stuff in bills but wont vocally speak against trans folks. Neither will they defend trans folks.
And then there are the politicians who when running refuse to have positions. E.g. Bercerra and Kamala Harris whose positions amount to little more than “I will follow the law” when speaking on trans issues.
Thank you.
Be respectful? Okay, sure...to the STAFFER, maybe.
But that alleged Dem politician better hear some extremely angry and scared constituents who are at the point of joining the mass Exodus that has already started.
Because a slow motion genocide ( https://www.lemkininstitute.com/single-post/experts-warn-u-s-in-early-stages-of-genocide-against-trans-americans) is KIND OF A BIG FUCKING DEAL, especially for those of us who don't get passing privilege.
Oh I completely agree, but the odds of you actually speaking with the politician when you call them are so astronomically low that it's safer to assume you'll be speaking with a staffer.
I work on trans rights issues at the Arizona Capitol, and this list is very inaccurate. It seems like you are counting routine absences against them, but I can confirm that we have a united Democratic caucus in opposing anti-trans bills here.
What I don't understand is this: why does the caucus routinely issue a 'do pass' recommendation for these bills? Or take Senate Bill 1103 from last year (a bathroom bill; status page https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/81595): the House rules committee voted unanimously to send it to the floor, but in the Senate, Democrats did mount their objections in the rules committee.
If I were them, I'd be doing everything in my power to obstruct these bills, just like Democrats in other states are doing. I'll also add that AZ Republicans almost never miss votes on these bills (I checked for that too). I obviously don't want to draw too many conclusions from a 'not voting' status, but do you know what's up with that?
Yeah happy to explain! So when it says "yes" next to the caucus it doesn't mean they're approving of it, it just indicates it was discussed in caucus. Rules votes also are just there to make sure the bill is written properly, but as you noted they usually will pull these and vote no anyway to make the point. As for the absences there's lots of reasons, but in AZ a real dodge would be if the member voted "present", which luckily none have done.
I should also clarify - an absence in AZ is essentially a no vote, since you have to get to a majority of members elected in each chamber, not just those present.
Can a member vote present in AZ? The bill tracking only shows 4 options: ‘yea,’ ‘nay,’ ‘not voting,’ and ‘excused.’
Also, not for nothing but every single anti-trans bill is a constitutional question. Every single one imposes sex-based distinctions. Every single one is discriminatory. At best, they’re sticking with procedure when Republicans clearly aren’t following it. From what I can tell, Arizona is just about the only place this is happening in.
I get that Katie Hobbs has been stopping all of them (I love her) but they shouldn’t be relying on that.
You're absolutely right they shouldn't be relying on that, and they should have pulled that from the consent agenda on rules in the House to oppose. There's definitely room for them to be more forceful, but I just wanted to jump in and make sure you knew it wasn't such a dire picture here!
That’s fair. I don’t think they’re as bad as South Carolina (where almost half of them supported (like, actual yea votes) the bathroom bill recently) but say a GOP governor is elected in AZ; I wouldn’t trust Dems to obstruct the anti-trans agenda there in any way, shape, or form based on how they’re acting.
I definitely would trust them to obstruct as much as they can, but the other piece is that the minority party here has basically no levers to pull on that front beyond hostile amendments, and dragging out floor action until their time limit fully runs out. They do those things now, but I would hope they step up even more if they no longer had Hobbs as a backstop.
You write (and indicate on the map) that Arkansas has the highest percentage of Dems voting for anti-trans legislation, yet I don’t see a link or citation? What are you sources please.
One of the main examples of this was Arkansas House Bill 1796, which formally tied driver's license gender markers to birth certificates (AR used to have self-ID too so this was really harmful) and banned X markers (which AR used to offer as well and was actually the first state to). Here are the vote totals from that:
https://legiscan.com/AR/rollcall/HB1796/id/1530827
https://legiscan.com/AR/rollcall/HB1796/id/1543082
Other notable ones include the 2025 parental rights bill House Bill 1669 (3 defections in the House) and 2023 bathroom ban House Bill 1156 (8 defections).
I'll add that with one exception, all of these Dems have done this more than once and a few have actually voted FOR these things. Also, being "non voting" is a known thing that AR Dems are doing to not vote on controversial things.
We’ve had a Republican supermajority for ten years at least. The X marker ban on drivers licenses was imposed by our Republican governor Sarah Huckabee.
All the No votes on HB 1796 are Dems, all the N/V are Dems (which yes isn’t helpful). I see 2 Dems out of the House vote w the Republicans. Are the N/V and 2 Yes votes what you mark as making AR the worst?
Thank
I didn't expect Arizona to be in the highest range. Kinda scares me
So can we call them Fake Dems?
Thank you for your respectful calls to action. 🙏🏻
Throw them on the scrap heap of history along with the rest