Transgender Bill Supporters Sue Board of Elections

Yesterday, twelve Montgomery County residents filed suit against the Montgomery County Board of Elections in the county’s circuit court seeking to set aside their finding that the anti-transgender petition should proceed. The plaintiffs include former Progressive Maryland president and former state delegate candidate Elbridge James and current Takoma Park mayor Bruce Williams. They are represented by Jonathan Shurberg, an attorney working with Equality Maryland.

The complaint alleges that Citizens for Responsible Government (CRG), the group that collected the signatures, used “inaccurate, inflammatory and false information” that is “indicative of a pattern of fraud on the part of the individuals collecting the signatures…” For example, one of the plaintiffs claimed that she “was falsely induced into signing the referendum petition that is the subject of this lawsuit by individuals stating that the law in question allowed for unisex bathrooms and for men to be in the women’s bathroom.”

The complaint goes on to question the validity of the signatures themselves. It alleges that many signatures were outright forgeries, were not obtained from registered voters, were not obtained from county residents, did not have any addresses or were duplicates. The complaint lists numerous problems with the circulator affidavits, such as, “The Petition contains numerous Petition sheets reflecting alterations indicative of fraud by the circulator such as circulator and/or signer information that appears to have been covered with “white out…” But the complaint never states how many signatures or circulator affidavits are alleged to be invalid.

Finally, the complaint claims that the Board of Elections ignored the above problems, stating, “Defendant Board of Elections appears to have determined to overlook disqualifying infirmities in the Petition signatures, circulator certifications and other categories set forth above and instead to certify the Petition despite the Petition’s failure to comply with governing legal requirements.” The remedy sought by the plaintiffs is for the Montgomery County Circuit Court to set aside the board’s finding of validity, thereby allowing the transgender anti-discrimination bill to take effect.

It’s difficult to get a sense of the volume of evidence the plaintiffs have to back up their claims. CRG submitted 32,087 signatures. They need 25,001 to be upheld. The Board of Elections never stated how many signatures were found to be valid when they certified the petition. The complaint never stated how many signatures Equality Maryland’s volunteers found to be invalid. So the presiding judge would have a number of options: find that the process is so fraud-ridden that the petition must be set aside (the plaintiffs’ position), find that the Board of Elections acted within its allowable discretion or order the board to re-examine every signature.

But there is a bigger tactical field than merely the legal realm. The transgender bill started as an anti-discrimination bill, pure and simple. Then it was amended to include “any restroom, shower, dressing room, locker room or similar facility,” an amendment that was later removed but never forgotten by its opponents. CRG’s petition drive degenerated into an ugly ground war that produced this video of a County Council staffer confronting petition gatherers. CRG is promising a lawsuit over this incident. So now we have one confirmed lawsuit against a taxpayer-funded agency, another possible lawsuit involving a taxpayer-funded employee, much talk about showers and bathrooms but much less talk about protecting innocent people from discrimination – which after all was the inspiration for the bill. CRG’s fear-mongerers are running wild while the bill’s original, necessary purpose is receding into the background. From a purely tactical perspective, this order of battle is more favorable to CRG than to the bill's supporters.

Back in 1991, the Planned Parenthood vs. Casey federal abortion case caused many people to fear that the Supreme Court might overturn Roe vs. Wade. Maryland’s legislature passed a bill providing for Roe vs. Wade protections in the state’s law in case the Supreme Court threw out Roe. The law’s opponents successfully petitioned the bill to referendum, but the voters upheld it by a 62-38 margin. Since that 1992 vote, anti-choice groups have not come close to banning abortions in Maryland, though they do try to chip away at them.

If CRG does succeed in getting its referendum before the voters, it might be the best thing that ever happened for supporters of the transgender anti-discrimination bill. Voter affirmation will be much more useful for their cause than endless lawsuits (and videos).

Board of Elections Approves Anti-Transgender Petition

The Post has the story here. The Gazette also reports on it.

Citizens for a Responsible Government, the group organizing the petition, needed 25,001 votes to put the county's transgender law to referendum. Interestingly, neither the Board of Elections' letter nor CRG's press release indicates how many of the 32,087 signatures were found to be valid. As Equality Maryland intends to challenge the petition in court, the number of signatures by which CRG beat the margin will be relevant.

CRG has something else to worry about. Back in the summer of 2006, noted petition addict Robin Ficker was trying to get yet another tax ballot question approved. But the County Council rejected the petition wording by a 7-0 vote in part because of this:

One issue is whether the intent statement circulated with the petition reflected what the measure would do if voters approved it. It is misleading at best, council members said.

Many people, including Council President Mike Knapp, have alleged that CRG has been spreading misinformation about the transgender law. Could this issue come back to haunt them, perhaps before the council?

So this issue is not going away anytime soon. Oh joy! Maybe we will get lucky and receive some more video from new YouTube celebrity Dana Beyer.

CRG Alleges “Intimidation” by Dana Beyer

Citizens for a Responsible Government (CRG), the organization seeking to overturn Montgomery County’s Transgender Anti-Discrimination bill is alleging “intimidation” by County Council staffer Dana Beyer. And the group claims to have video evidence supporting their allegations.

CRG states in a press release that Beyer encountered its signature collectors outside a Giant Supermarket at Bethesda’s Westwood Shopping Center on Monday February 18. The following six-second cellphone video shows Beyer telling the collectors, “An email went out; you’re going to be asked to leave. Any petitions gathered today are illegal.”



CRG claims this is part of a pattern of “harassment and intimidation” by Beyer and others. Former Republican candidate for Congress Dan Zubairi also alleges that Beyer “ordered” him not to sign CRG’s petition but CRG supplies no evidence to back up that allegation. Finally, CRG alleges that Beyer violated Section 19A-14 of the County Code during the course of her activities. CRG attorney John Garza said he will “probably” file a civil rights lawsuit soon.

Beyer, an aide to County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg, Vice-President of Equality Maryland and former candidate for District 18 Delegate, told her side of the story to this blog. She said she encountered CRG’s petition collectors on Primary Election Day, the following weekend and President’s Day (2/18), the date of the incident in question. At the Bethesda Giant, she entered the store, told the manager that the petition collectors were violating store policy (which allows the group to collect signatures on only one weekend per month), and left soon after making the statements to the group shown on the video.

Council Member Trachtenberg was the lead sponsor of the transgender bill. Beyer, a transgender female who serves on Trachtenberg’s staff, worked on the bill and advocates for keeping it on the books along with passage of a similar state-level law. Activists with Teach the Facts and Equality Maryland are now challenging the validity of CRG’s signatures.

“These people had a right to collect signatures if they’re not trespassing and they did so. But if they’re trespassing, there’s no right for them to be there,” Beyer told us. “I didn’t harass or intimidate anybody… I don’t think what I did is wrong at all.” Beyer accused CRG of employing scare tactics, saying, “You want to talk about harassment and intimidation – we’ve gotten death threats! I have to deal with this because people are threatening my life and those of my friends and colleagues.” Trachtenberg has also talked about “spiteful messages and threats,” telling the Frederick News Post last year, “(They) left a message on my home phone asking my husband if he knows my sex.”

CRG has two things going against it. First, its video clip is only six seconds long. It does not have any context associated with the events before or after the video was taken. That context, along with testimony and evidence about any other events at other locations, will be relevant in any lawsuit. Second, the organization has a history of distorting the content of the legislation. Given that history, CRG’s version of events cannot be trusted as the entire truth.

But the incident between Beyer and CRG raises some interesting questions.

Did Beyer violate the County’s ethics code?
County Code Chapter 19A-4(m) defines a “public employee” as including “the County Executive and each member of the County Council” along with “any person employed by a County agency, including the director of the agency.” No exemptions appear for council staff or any employees operating off-the-clock. Even non-paid board and commission members are treated as employees.

County Code Chapter 19A-14(e) states, “A public employee must not intimidate, threaten, coerce or discriminate against any person for the purpose of interfering with that person’s freedom to engage in political activity.” Do Beyer’s activities in the video constitute intimidation? That question may be examined in court.

How does this reflect on the Montgomery County Council?
Should CRG go to court, they will probably attempt to tie Beyer’s conduct to her supervisor, Council Member Trachtenberg. County Code Chapter 19A-14(f) states, “A person must not influence or attempt to influence a public employee to violate this Chapter.” CRG’s attorneys may very well ask whether Trachtenberg knew of Beyer’s activities. Trachtenberg has made ethics one of her priorities while on the council. For example, she questioned the ethical implications of lobbyist-paid trips taken to Israel by other council members in the past, ultimately causing the County to abandon them. Trachtenberg has set high ethical standards for herself and others and we would expect her to vigorously battle CRG’s charges in court. Other council members and their staff will pay close attention.

How does this incident change the debate over the legislation?
There is little question that this video will be a propaganda boon to CRG. They can now expand their argument beyond the narrow confines of the legislation (on which they are clearly wrong) and into the realm of civil liberties. CRG will ask what business a County Council employee had in enforcing Giant’s solicitation policy. Trespassing on Giant’s property is a matter for company management and the police. Throw in the fact that the council employee in question was a known advocate for the bill and an employee of its lead sponsor and CRG will claim political targeting by the government. Many people who support the transgender bill will be uncomfortable with the idea of county employees – especially the personal staff of council members – seeking to get petition collectors ejected from store premises. Civil liberties questions are now going to arise on both sides of this debate.

Update: The Sentinel's coverage is here.

What Transgender Opponents Really Think

Finally, we uncover the true agenda of the opponents of Montgomery County’s Transgender Anti-Discrimination bill. But first some background.

Last September, Montgomery County Council Members Duchy Trachtenberg, Valerie Ervin and Marc Elrich introduced Bill No. 23-07. The bill’s purpose was to “prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, cable television service and taxicab service on the basis of gender identity.” Its primary effect was to add “gender identity” as a protected class from discrimination along with age, race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation, handicap, national origin or marital status under County Code Chapter 27.

After the bill was introduced, it was amended to include the following language:

A person must not deny any person access to the equal use of any restroom, shower, dressing room, locker room, or similar facility associated with the gender identity that the person publicly or exclusively expresses or asserts.

After significant public pressure, the council stripped this language from the bill. The bill was then passed by an 8-0 vote and signed by the County Executive.

But the controversy continues. Bill opponents have launched a petition drive to put its repeal on the ballot in the next general election. As David Lublin has noted, their success in meeting the threshold of 25,000 signatures is far from assured.

One dimension of the controversy is whether the bill prevents bathroom operators from forbidding biological men to use female bathrooms and locker rooms. As stated above, the language on that issue was stripped from the bill prior to its passage. Council President Mike Knapp recently commented on this in a press release:

“We have heard some people are confused about the effect of this new law on how the operator of a public accommodation controls the use of a public bathroom or locker room,” said Council President Knapp. “Bill 23-07 did not change the law in this area.”

Opponents of the legislation have circulated petitions to send the law to referendum, telling potential signers that the legislation requires men to be allowed in women’s bathrooms and locker rooms.

This is not accurate, Knapp said. The law still allows the operators of public bathrooms and locker rooms to continue to separate their facilities based on gender identity or biological gender. For example, a restaurant owner can require a biological male presenting as a female to use the men’s bathroom. The new law does not require a restaurant owner to allow biological males access to women’s bathrooms, or vice-versa.

“The misinformation being put out about this law really troubles me,” said Council President Knapp. “We guaranteed that certain people in our County will have the same rights as other residents—and that is all we did. Those who intentionally mislead people about what this bill means will have to explain what is behind their actions, but we want everyone to know exactly what this law is about.”

Citizens for a Responsible Government (CRG), which is leading the fight to repeal the bill, told the Gazette that the language “is too vague.” But in gathering signatures for their petition drive, evidence is accumulating that the group did tell signers that the bill allowed men into women’s bathrooms – an opinion unsupported by the bill’s language.

CRG is an offshoot of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum (CRC), which has struggled for years to exclude discussion of homosexuality from Montgomery County Public Schools. Prior to CRG’s establishment, CRC led a crusade against Bill No. 23-07, stating on its website:

Bill 23-07 adds “gender-identity” to the current Non-Discrimination Law, and will allow males who self identify themselves as females to have open access to ALL women’s and girls’ restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, and showers. In other words, a male teacher or student will be able to use the female restrooms and locker rooms if he thinks he is a female.

Again, this view is directly contradicted by the language that was passed.

Furthermore, prior to CRG’s start of a paper petition, CRC posted an online petition to mount pressure against the bill. The statements of the signers are very revealing and if you read them, you will quickly realize their real intent. Following are some of the signers of the online petition against Bill No. 23-07 speaking in their own words:

Sheila F. Stepek, petition signer 47: “Those unable to use the proper facilities can go find a tree!!!!”

Joan Press, 109: “What restrooms are the Council members going to use? They are setting OUR children and neices up for RAPE. The council members and the State of Maryland will be hels accountable and sued for this one. Between the HOMOSEXUAL class in Montgoery County Public Schools and now this we have NO rights. Only in America! It's time to move, and we pay high taxes for this? They are Crazy or we are stupid! Or they are trying to make us look both! I didn't vote!”

Kathleen O’Connor, 167: “Stop using MY tax dollars to strip MY parental rights and stop endandering and indoctrinating our children with endless perversions.”

Bonnie Van Veldhuizen, 290: “HEADLINES: MONTGOMERY COUNTY MARYLAND EXTENDS OPEN INVITATION TO ALL PEDOPHILES AND STALKERS SEEKING NEW TARGETS. Shame on every council member who supports this bill. It may be your granddaughter or grandson in the next stall.”

Jeff He, 308: “Nonsense. Who summit the bill should GO TO HELL!!!”

Stephen W. Sweet, 492: “Gay is one thing. But a man/women thinking they are the opposite sex is litterally not figureitively, INSANE!! If this becomes acceptable; I promise the county counsel I will then become a dog and your yard, tree, light post and fire hydrant , are then MY bathroom.”

D. Selleh, 732: “Why isn't the council advising free psychological help instead of encouranging dilusion?”

Robert J. Cassotto, 757: “God is Still in control and those who are not with Him are against Him.He will show is all that He lives.God is also Just and we will very soon have to pay for following satan.....some of us will, that is! Come Lord Jesus !”

Michael Garlick, 768: “Matt. 23:27: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.”

Lucy Kiganda, 833: “IT'S NOT ENOUGH THAT OUR CHILDREN ARE EXPOSED TO THE PEDOPHILES OF THIS WORLD, NOW THEY HAVE TO FACE THEM IN THE RESTROOMS AND LOCKERROOOMS! HOW PREPOSTEROUS!”

David John, 991: “This is shame wellcame evil in America bye bye God and son and h spirit, What next patition man or women to marry pets”

John Fulayter, 1006: “To applease's the transgender, is to undermine's the well-being of public's mentality & pshyical show how the bill or in any form cannot encourage the harmony but put it backwards to wondering why we only have more dysfunctional problem to fix's. Please do not allow this bill back fired the public safety.”