Massachusetts Question 3, Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Veto Referendum (2018)

Massachusetts Question 3
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic LGBT issues
Status a Approved
Type Referendum	Origin Citizens
List of Massachusetts measuresMassachusetts Question 1Massachusetts Question 2Massachusetts Question 3Submit

Massachusetts Question 3, Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Veto Referendum, was on the ballot in Massachusetts as a veto referendum on November 6, 2018. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported upholding Senate Bill 2407, a bill to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity in public places—such as hotels, restaurants, and stores.

A "no" vote opposed SB 2407 and repealed the law designed to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity in public places—such as hotels, restaurants, and stores.

Election results[edit]

Massachusetts Question 3
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,806,742	67.82%
No		857,401	32.18%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview[edit]

What did Question 3 do?

A "yes" vote on Question 3 supported upholding a law that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in public places. The law requires access to areas segregated based on gender—such as bathrooms and locker rooms—to be allowed according to an individual's self-identified gender identity. The law, which went into effect in October 2016, includes some exceptions. A "no" vote on this measure opposed this law and supported overturning it. This measure was put on the ballot through a signature petition drive by opponents of the 2016 law—SB 2407—which means the sponsors of the signature petition drive responsible for the measure advocated for a "no" vote. Click here to read a list provided by the attorney general of places considered public accommodations for which the provisions of the measure would apply.^[1]

The penalty for each violation of the law's prohibition against discrimination in public places, including discrimination based on gender identity under SB 2407, was set to range from up to $100 and/or up to 30 days in prison to $2,500 and/or up to a year in prison depending on the violation. Moreover, the law authorized the assessment of a civil penalty of between $10,000 and $50,000 for each violation depending on prior violations.^[1]

Status of gender identity policy in Massachusetts

The law this measure concerns went into effect in October 2016. Massachusetts law also prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in the areas of housing, employment, credit, and post-secondary education according to a bill approved in 2011, and the outcome of this veto referendum measure did not affect the 2011 bill.^[2]

Status of gender identity policy in the United States

There is no federal law that explicitly prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, although it has been successfully argued in some court cases that prohibitions against discrimination based on sex apply in cases concerning gender identity. In 2014, under President Obama's administration, then Attorney General Eric Holder stated that the federal department of justice would begin interpreting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to apply to transgender people. In October 2017, however, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed Holder's ruling and instructed federal prosecutors to not apply the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in cases of transgender people. In July 2017, President Trump issued a directive banning transgender people from serving in the military. Following federal court rulings against the policy, however, the department of justice announced it would not implement the policy but planned to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court at a later date.^[3][4][5][6]

Massachusetts is one of nineteen states, along with Washington D.C., that had implemented anti-discrimination laws regarding gender identity as of January 2018. Six other states had policies prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in state employment. Minnesota was the first state to pass a law prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in 1993. The Massachusetts veto referendum concerns public accommodations; six states besides Massachusetts have provisions prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in the area of public accommodations. Of the 25 states without laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity, four are under divided government, and the other 21 are Republican trifectas. Of the 19 states with laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in areas besides state employment, nine are under divided government, eight are Democratic trifectas, and two are Republican trifectas.^[7]

The issue of anti-discrimination laws regarding gender identity has been at the center of conflicts within multiple state governments, from New Hampshire in 2009 to North Carolina in 2016 and 2017. ^[8]

Campaigns for and against the measure One committee, Freedom for All Massachusetts, Inc., was registered to support a "yes" vote on Question 3. Freedom for All Massachusetts opposed the intention of the veto referendum petition sponsors. The committee raised $6.08 million in total, including $887,563 in-kind contributions. The largest donor was the Freedom Massachusetts Education Fund, which gave $507,200.^[9]

Two committees, Keep MA Safe and No to 3, were registered to sponsor the referendum petition effort and to support a "no" vote on Question 3. The committees raised $663,422, including $198,417 in in-kind services. The largest donor was the Massachusetts Family Institute which gave $122,511 in in-kind services.^[10]

Measure design[edit]

Click here to read the full text of the measure

Question 3 was designed to uphold or reject a bill passed by the state legislature in July 2016—Senate Bill 2407 (SB 2407)—which prohibited discrimination based on gender identity in public businesses or other places open to the general public, such as hotels, stores, restaurants, theaters, sports stadiums, and hospitals. Opponents of the law placed this veto referendum on the ballot through a signature petition drive in an effort to have SB 2407 repealed by voters. SB 2407 added gender identity to a list of prohibited reasons for discrimination that included race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, disability, and ancestry.^[1]

The penalty for each violation of the law's prohibition against discrimination in public places, including discrimination based on gender identity under SB 2407, was set to range from up to $100 and/or up to 30 days in prison to $2,500 and/or up to a year in prison depending on the violation. Moreover, the law authorized the assessment of a civil penalty of between $10,000 and $50,000 for each violation depending on prior violations.^[1]

Gender identity is defined by state law as the gender-related identity, appearance, or behavior "sincerely held as part of a person's core identity" regardless of "whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth." SB 2407 requires any place of public accommodation that has separate areas for males and females, including restrooms, to allow access to and full use of those areas consistent with a person’s gender identity, rather than their physiological or assigned sex at birth. SB 2407 also prohibits the owner or manager of a place of public accommodation from using advertising or signage that discriminates on the basis of gender identity. The law requires the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination to make rules and regulations for the enforcement of the law and directs the attorney general to provide rules and procedures for cases in which a certain gender identity is claimed for inappropriate reasons. The law makes exceptions for certain fitness and health facilities open only to a specific gender and that do not receive public funding, any program or entity authorized by federal law to provide services exclusively to a specific gender, and establishments that provide lodging only to people of a certain gender.^[1]

In 2011, the state legislature passed a separate law prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in housing, employment, credit, and higher education. The veto referendum regarding SB 2407 would not affect that 2011 law.^[2][11]

SB 2407 went into effect fully on October 1, 2016. While Massachusetts has a process to suspend laws through a veto referendum petition, petitioners collected enough signatures to put the referendum on the ballot, but not enough to suspend SB 2407 until the election.^[1]

Text of measure[edit]

Ballot question[edit]

The ballot question was as follows:^[12]

“

Do you approve of a law summarized below, which was approved by the House of Representatives and the Senate on July 7, 2016?[13]

”

Ballot summary[edit]

The ballot summary of Question 3 was as follows:^[12]

“

This law adds gender identity to the list of prohibited grounds for discrimination in places of public accommodation, resort, or amusement. Such grounds also include race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, disability, and ancestry. A “place of public accommodation, resort or amusement” is defined in existing law as any place that is open to and accepts or solicits the patronage of the general public, such as hotels, stores, restaurants, theaters, sports facilities, and hospitals. “Gender identity” is defined as a person’s sincerely held gender-related identity, appearance, or behavior, whether or not it is different from that traditionally associated with the person’s physiology or assigned sex at birth. This law prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in a person’s admission to or treatment in any place of public accommodation. The law requires any such place that has separate areas for males and females (such as restrooms) to allow access to and full use of those areas consistent with a person’s gender identity. The law also prohibits the owner or manager of a place of public accommodation from using advertising or signage that discriminates on the basis of gender identity. This law directs the state Commission Against Discrimination to adopt rules or policies and make recommendations to carry out this law. The law also directs the state Attorney General to issue regulations or guidance on referring for legal action any person who asserts gender identity for an improper purpose. The provisions of this law governing access to places of public accommodation are effective as of October 1, 2016. The remaining provisions are effective as of July 8, 2016. A YES VOTE would keep in place the current law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity in places of public accommodation. A NO VOTE would repeal this provision of the public accommodation law.[13]

”

Full text[edit]

The full text for Senate Bill 2407, which was enacted into law as Chapter 134, is below:^[1]

Senate Bill 2407 Whereas, the deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat its purpose, which is to provide forthwith for protection from discrimination on the basis of gender identity, therefore it is hereby declared to be an emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public convenience. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows: SECTION 1. Section 92A of chapter 272 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2014 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after the word “sex”, in line 9, the following words:- , gender identity. SECTION 2. The second paragraph of said section 92A of said chapter 272, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by adding the following sentence:- An owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement that lawfully segregates or separates access to such place of public accommodation, or a portion of such place of public accommodation, based on a person’s sex shall grant all persons admission to, and the full enjoyment of, such place of public accommodation or portion thereof consistent with the person’s gender identity. SECTION 3. Section 98 of said chapter 272, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the word “sex”, in line 3, the following words:- , gender identity. SECTION 4. (a) The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination shall adopt, promulgate, amend and rescind rules and regulations or formulate policies and make recommendations to effectuate the purposes of this act, including when and how gender identity, as defined in clause Fifty-ninth of section 7 of chapter 4 of the General Laws, may be evidenced. (b) The attorney general’s office shall issue regulations or guidance for referring to appropriate law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority for legal action any person whose assertion of a gender identity is for an improper purpose, as provided in clause Fifty-ninth of section 7 of chapter 4. (c) The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and the attorney general’s office shall report such rules, regulations, policies, recommendations or guidance to the clerks of the house of representatives and the senate not later than September 1, 2016. SECTION 5. Sections 2 and 3 shall take effect on October 1, 2016.

Readability score[edit]

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The secretary of the commonwealth[14] wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 11, and the FRE is 60. The word count for the ballot title is 21, and the estimated reading time is 5 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 15, and the FRE is 27. The word count for the ballot summary is 300, and the estimated reading time is 1 minute and 20 seconds. In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support for "yes" vote[edit]

Note: For this referendum, individuals who supported a "yes" vote were those who favor upholding SB 2407.

Freedom For All Massachusetts led the campaign for a "yes" vote.^[15]

Supporters for "yes" vote[edit]

Officials Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker (R)[16] Organizations AFL-CIO AFSCME AFT America's Building Trade Unions The Massachusetts AFL-CIO SEIU-Healthcare Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) Massachusetts Nurses Association SEIU-Local 509 1199SEIU The UAW ACLU Massachusetts AIDS Action Committee AIDS Project Worcester Action Together Massachusetts American Jewish Committee Anti-Defamation League Athlete Ally Bay State Stonewall Democrats Boston Alliance of Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Youth Boston Area Rape Crisis Center Boston Bar Association Boston Opera Collective Boston Public Library Bisexual Resource Center Black and Pink Body Image for Justice Boston Dyke March Boston Pride Elizabeth Freeman Center Fenway Health Fishing Partnership Support Services Freedom for All Americans GLAD GLSEN Greater Worcester Our Revolution Harvard Square Homeless Shelter Health Care for All Hispanic Black Gay Coalition Human Rights Campaign Jane Doe, Inc. Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action Jewish Community Relations Council Justice Resources Institute Keshet LGBT Aging Project Lexington Pride Coalition Mass Equality Massachusetts Commission on LGBTQ Youth Massachusetts Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus Massachusetts Jobs with Justice Massachusetts LGBTQ Bar Association Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition MassNOW Multicultural AIDS Coalition nAGLY Noho Pride OUT MetroWest PFLAG Greater Boston Progressive Massachusetts Rosie's Place Southeastern Adoption Services SpeakOUT Boston The Network La Red The Theater Offensive Union for Reform Judiasm Our Revolution [17] Union of Minority Neighborhoods Y2Y Harvard Square American Association of University Women Asian Task Force Against Domestic Violence Boston Area Rape Crisis Center Boston Medical Center Domestic Violence Program Boston GLOW Center for Violence Prevention and Recovery, a program of BIDMC Domestic Violence Ended (DOVE) Economic Mobility Pathways (formerly Crittenton Women’s Union) Elizabeth Freeman Center Family and Community Resources, Inc. Girls Inc. HarborCOV Jane Doe, Inc. Jeanne Geiger Crisis Center Jewish Family and Children's Services Massachusetts Alliance of Portuguese Speakers (MAPS) - Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Program The Mayors Against LGBT Discrimination Coalition MataHari Women’s Work Center NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts National Association of Social Workers National Organization for Women, Massachusetts Chapter New England Learning Center for Women in Transition New Hope Inc. Newton Wellesley Hospital - Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Program Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund REACH Beyond Domestic Violence, Inc. Rosie’s Place Saheli Inc. Safe Passage, Inc. The Center for Hope and Healing, Inc Transition House, Inc. Victim Rights Law Center, Massachusetts Chapter Womanshelter/Companeras Women Will Vote Women’s Bar Association (WBA) of Massachusetts YWCA Boston YWCA, Central Massachusetts YWCA Northeastern Massachusetts American Association of University Women Asian Task Force Against Domestic Violence Boston Area Rape Crisis Center Boston Medical Center Domestic Violence Program Boston GLOW Center for Violence Prevention and Recovery, a program of BIDMC DOmestic Violence Ended (DOVE) Economic Mobility Pathways (formerly Crittenton Women’s Union) Elizabeth Freeman Center Family and Community Resources, Inc. Girls Inc. HarborCOV Jane Doe, Inc. Jeanne Geiger Crisis Center Jewish Family and Children's Services Massachusetts Alliance of Portuguese Speakers (MAPS) - Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Program MataHari Women’s Work Center NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts National Association of Social Workers National Organization for Women, Massachusetts Chapter New England Learning Center for Women in Transition New Hope Inc. Newton Wellesley Hospital - Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Program Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund REACH Beyond Domestic Violence, Inc. Rosie’s Place Saheli Inc. Safe Passage, Inc. The Center for Hope and Healing, Inc Transition House, Inc. Victim Rights Law Center, Massachusetts Chapter Womanshelter/Companeras Women Will Vote Women’s Bar Association (WBA) of Massachusetts YWCA Boston YWCA, Central Massachusetts YWCA Northeastern Massachusetts Businesses and labor unions Akamai Technologies Arnold Worldwide athenahealth Atrius Health Bain & Company Barking Crab Biogen Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts BNY Mellon Cambridge Health Alliance Cape Air CarGurus, Inc. Carbonite Cisco Systems Delta Dental Dimensional Insight Empirix Inc Eastern Bank EMC Facebook General Electric Google Hammond Real Estate Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Hill Holliday Huron Consulting Group Iron Mountain, Inc. InkHouse J.P. Licks, Inc. John Hancock Financial John Snow Inc. Legal Sea Foods Liberty Mutual Insurance LPL Financial Locke Lord LLP MassMutual Microsoft Corporation PayPal Planet Fitness Ropes & Gray Salesforce Shields Health Care Group State Street Sun Life Financial Trillium Asset Management Trip Advisor Tufts Health Plan Twitter UMass Memorial Health Care Alliance for Business Leadership Boston Bar Association Greater Boston Business Council Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce Kendall Square Massachusetts Hospital Association Massachusetts Medical Society Massachusetts Nurses Association Massachusetts Parent Teacher Association National Association of Social Workers Women’s Bar Association Worcester Chamber of Commerce 4 Buyers Real Estate 8 by design Abedeon Ashtanga Yoga Belmont AtHome Veterinary B.G. Events and Catering Babies in Common Ballroom in Boston Bella Luna Restaurant and the Milky Way Lounge Bradley & Diegel Salon Broadway Market Cambridge Common Restaurant Carbonmind Carol Goodman Complementary Health Services Chameleon Tattoo Christine F. Connelly, CPA Christopher’s Restaurant Civera Clozure Associates, LLC Column Health Dan Luker Carpentry Dark Matter Chocolate Laboratory Darwin’s Ltd. Digital-11 Every Body Pilates Gonzalez & Associates Googleplex Technologies, LLC. Fazenda Cafe Ferris Wheels Bike Shop Firecracker Flour Bakery + Cafe Fresh Copy Fresh Hair Hair by Christine & Co. Hope Vanderwolk Interiors Just Crust Pizzeria Karen W Saakvitne, Ph.D. Karla’s Hair Designs Kauffman Crozier LLP Law Office of Andrew Cowan Leah C-S Photography Learning Touch, LLC Life Alive Lucky Find Machine/Ramrod MaeBright Group Mark’s Deli Maryann Thompson Architects Michael J. Wolfson, Esq. Nomad Ocean House Cafe + Surf Shop OnSite Studios Pandemonium Books & Games Inc. Pecorino Fine Cheese & Wine Shop Preble Electric Pontikes Law LLC Porter Square Books Positive Images Quad Bikes Rebekah Brooks Jewelry Rickenbacker Resources Robyn Ochs Consulting RocketBoard Sage Inn & Lounge Salt & Olive Sleepy Dog Acupuncture Spy Pond Partners, LLC Sweet Cheeks Q Swet Studio Schoenhof’s Foreign Books TDM Photography The Ashfield Lake House The Chatty Press The Tap Tokai Triple Canopy Consulting TrueNorth Transit Group LLC Tufts Health Plan Ula Cafe Vaiani & Clarke Salon Valerie Bartolo Hair Removal Veggie Galaxy Vesuvius Pizza West Side Lounge Wistia Wise & Jack, LLC Wooden Kiwi Productions LLC Work Shop Salon Sports organizations and teams The Patriots The Boston Red Sox New Englund Revolution TD Garden The Boston Bruins Local public officials Mayor Marty Walsh, Boston Mayor Kim Driscoll, Salem Town Manager Paul Bockelman, Amherst Mayor Paul Heroux, Attleboro Board of Selectmen Chair Neil Wishinsky, Brookline Mayor Marc McGovern, Cambridge Former Mayor David Maher, Cambridge City Manager Thomas G. Ambrosino, Chelsea Mayor Alex Morse, Holyoke Mayor Daniel Rivera, Lawrence Mayor Judith Flanagan Kennedy, Lynn Former Mayor Michael McGlynn, Medford Mayor Robert Dolan, Melrose Mayor Jon Mitchell, New Bedford Mayor Ruthanne Fuller, Newton Mayor Setti Warren, Newton Mayor David Narkewicz, Northampton Mayor Linda Tyer, Pittsfield Mayor Joseph Curtatone, Somerville Mayor Domenic J. Sarno, Springfield Former Town Manager Thomas Younger, Swampscott Mayor Joseph Petty, Worcester Law enforcement organizations and officials Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association Massachusetts Major City Chiefs Massachusetts Association of Minority Law Enforcement Officers Amherst: Scott P Livingstone, Chief of Police Boston: William B Evans, Police Commissioner Brookline: Daniel C O’Leary, Chief of Police Cambridge: Robert C. Haas, Police Commissioner (Retired) Canton: Kenneth Berkowitz, Police Chief Lenox: Stephen E. O'Brien, Chief of Police Lynn: Kevin Coppinger, Chief of Police (Former - currently Essex County Sheriff) Mansfield: Ronald Sellon, Chief of Police Marblehead: Robert Picariello, Chief of Police Medford: Leo E. Sacco, Jr., Chief of Police Melrose: Michael L. Lyle, Chief of Police Newton: Howard L. Mintz, Chief of Police (Retired) Northampton: Jody Kasper, Chief of Police Pittsfield: Michael Wynn, Chief of Police Salem: Mary Butler, Chief of Police Somerville: David Fallon, Chief of Police Stoughton: Donna McNamara, Police Chief Swampscott: Ronald Madigan, Chief of Police Wakefield: Rick Smith, Chief of Police Worcester: Gary J Gemme, Chief of Police Colleges Boston College Lambda Law Students Association Harvard Gender and Sexuality Caucus Harvard Transgender Task Force Harvard University MassArt Massachusetts College of Art and Design Massachusetts College of Art and Design Student Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Government Association Mount Holyoke College Northeastern University Public Higher Education Network Of Massachusetts Simmons College Tufts University UMass Dartmouth Center for Women, Gender & Sexuality Western New England University School of Law Williams College Religious organizations and churches Reverend Irene Monroe, Public Theologian, Cambridge Lead Deacon Ashley Anderson, First Baptist Church in Jamaica Plain Reverend Kent French, Senior Pastor, United Parish in Brookline Reverend Sheldon Keller, Mashpee Congregational Church Reverend Dr. Ian Mevorach, Common Street Spiritual Center, Natick Reverend Brent Newberry, Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church of Worcester Reverend Matthew Rasure, First Baptist Church, Medford Reverend Cody Sanders Ph.D, Old Cambridge Baptist Church Reverend Ashlee Wiest-Laird, The First Baptist Church in Jamaica Plain Reverend Valeria Schmidt, Trinity Church, Northborough The Right Reverend Dr. Douglas Fisher, Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Western Massachusetts The Right Reverend Alan Gates, Bishop Diocesan, Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts The Right Reverend Gayle Harris, Bishop Suffragan, Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts The Right Reverend Bud Cederholm, Bishop Suffragan (Retired), Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts The Very Reverend Jep Streit, Cathedral Church of St. Paul, Boston The Reverend Holly Lyman Antolini, St. James’s Episcopal Church, Cambridge The Reverend Elizabeth Berman, Canon, The Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts The Reverend Daniel Bernier, The Church of The Good Shepherd, Wareham The Reverend Canon Dr. Katharine C. Black, The Cathedral Church of St. Paul, Boston The Reverend Rebecca Black, Priest-in-Charge, Christ Episcopal Church, Medway The Reverend Steven Bonsey, Advisor for Contemplative Practice, Leadership Development Initiative, Brookline The Reverend Stephanie Bradbury, Priest-in-Charge, St. John’s Church, Beverly Farms The Reverend Sarah Brockmann, Trinity Church, Rockland The Reverend Fr. Harold Bronk, St. Michael Church, Milton The Reverend Margaret Bullitt-Jonas, Missioner for Creation Care, Episcopal Diocese of Western Massachusetts, Springfield The Reverend Richard Burden, Rector, All Saints Parish, Brookline The Reverend Matthew Cadwell, Rector, Emmanuel Episcopal Church, Wakefield The Reverend Lynn Campbell, Associate Rector, Christ Church, Needham The Reverend Julie Carson, Rector, St. Andrew's Episcopal Church, Framingham The Reverend Edward Cardoza, St. Mark’s Church, Foxboro The Reverend Arrington Chambliss, Executive Director, Episcopal City Mission The Reverend Jacqueline Clark, Assistant Rector, St. Elizabeth’s Episcopal Church, Sudbury The Reverend John Clarke, St. Paul’s Episcopal Parish, Malden The Reverend Louise Conant, Parish of the Good Shepherd, Waban The Reverend Jeremi Colvin, Curate, Church of the Holy Spirit, Fall River The Reverend Malia Crawford, Rector, Church of Our Saviour, Arlington The Reverend Marya DeCarlen, All Saints Church of the North Shore, Danvers The Reverend Aileen DiBenedetto, Church of the Good Shepherd, Acton The Reverend Kate Ekrem, Rector, Church of Our Redeemer, Lexington The Reverend Kathryn Elledge, Rector, All Saints Church, Stoneham The Reverend Clyde Elledge, Rector, St. Andrews Church, Marblehead The Reverend Katharine Evans, Grace, Ipswich The Isaac Everett, Minister of Liturgical Arts, The Crossing, Boston The Reverend Manuel Faria, Rector, St. Peter’s Church, Beverly The Reverend Dr. Elise Feyerherm, Trinity Episcopal Church, Wrentham The Reverend Dr. Lisa Fortuna, Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, Melrose Em Gamber, Minister of Community Wellness, The Crossing, Boston The Reverend Maggie Geller, Millis The Reverend Dr. Anne Gilson, Christ Church, Harwich The Reverend Nancy Gossling, Society of St John the Evangelist, Cambridge The Reverend Jane Gould, St. Stephen’s Church, Lynn The Reverend Gretchen Grimshaw, Rector, Parish of St. Paul, Newton Highlands The Reverend Edgar Gutierrez-Duarte, Priest-in-Charge, St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, Chelsea The Venerable Michael Hamilton, Archdeacon, The Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts William Harron, Emmaus Fellow, Saint Mary’s Episcopal Church, Dorchester The Reverend Marsha Hoecker, Trinity Chapel, Shirley The Reverend Terry Hofmann, Church of Our Saviour, Milton The Reverend Megan Holding, Assistant Rector, St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Brookline The Reverend Martha Hubbard, St. Paul’s Church, Newburyport The Reverend Sara Irwin, Christ Church, Waltham The Reverend Joel Ives, Rector, Church of Our Saviour, Arlington The Reverend Thea Keith-Lucas, Lutheran Episcopal Ministry at MIT, Cambridge The Reverend Phil LaBelle, St. Mark’s Episcopal Church, Southborough The Reverend Kathleen Lonergan, St. James Church, Groveland Jane Maihos, All Saints Episcopal Church of the North Shore The Reverend Kate Malin, Rector, St. Anne’s in-the-Fields, Lincoln The Reverend Rob Mark, Church of the Covenant, Boston Jennifer McCracken, Chaplain, Cathedral Church of St. Paul, Boston The Reverend Amy McCreath, Church of the Good Shepherd, Watertown The Reverend Dr. Michael Paul Melendez, Cathedral of St. Paul, Jamaica Plain The Reverend Jeff Mello, Rector, St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Brookline The Reverend Christopher Morck, Grace Episcopal Church, New Bedford The Reverend Dr. Cameron Partridge, Episcopal Chaplain at Boston University The Reverend Rachael Pettengill-Rasure, Priest-in-Charge, Church of Our Saviour, Milton The Reverend Barbara Peterson, St. John’s Episcopal Church, Sandwich The Reverend Deborah Phillips, Rector, Grace Church, Salem Andrew Rohm, Vestry member, St. James Episcopal Church, Cambridge Matthew Potts, Priest-in-Residence, Harvard Divinity School, Cambridge The Reverend Deacon David Prentice, All Saints of the North Shore, Danvers The Reverend Dr. Katie Rimer, St. James Episcopal Church, Cambridge Lucas Sanders, Treasurer, St. James Episcopal Church, Cambridge The Reverend John Satula, Rector, St. James Episcopal Church, Cambridge The Reverend Ken Schmidt, Church of the Good Shepherd, Watertown The Reverend Gordon Schultz, Rector, St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Hopkinton The Reverend Sue Fisher Seeger, Church of Our Saviour, Arlington The Reverend Robert Sherwood, St. Peter’s Episcopal Church On-The-Canal The Reverend Tara Soughers, Bristol Trinity Episcopal Church, Easton The Reverend Kevin Sparrow, Assistant for Administration and Children's Ministries, Christ Church Cambridge The Reverend Leslie Sterling, Rector, St. Bartholomew’s Church, Cambridge The Reverend George Stevens, St. Mary’s Episcopal Church, Newton Lower Falls The Reverend Matthew Stewart, Rector, Church of the Holy Spirit, Fall River The Reverend Natasha Stewart, Rector, Trinity Church, Bridgewater The Reverend Paula Toland, St. John’s Episcopal Church, Franklin The Reverend Roy Tripp, St. John the Evangelist Episcopal Church, Duxbury Fiona Vidal-White, Sunday School Administrator, Church of Our Saviour, Arlington The Reverend Dr. Regina Walton, Grace Episcopal Church, Newton The Reverend Noah Van Niel, St. John the Evangelist, Hingham The Reverend Daniel Weir, Priest Associate, Trinity Church, Topsfield The Reverend Christine Whittaker, Retired, St. Michael’s, Holliston The Reverend Rachel Wildman, St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Bedford The Reverend Barabara Williamson, Rector, St. Elizabeth’s Church The Reverend David Woessner, St. Michael’s-on-the-Heights Church, Worcester The Reverend Colette Wood, Rector, All Saints, Whitman Rabbi Susan Abramson, Temple Shalom Emeth, Burlington Rabbi Alison Adler, Temple B'nai Abraham, Beverly Rabbi Katy Allen, Ma'yan Tikvah, Wayland Rabbi Alan Alpert, Congregation Agudat Achim, Leominster Rabbi Thomas Alpert, Temple Etz Chaim, Franklin Rabbi Sharon Anisfeld, Hebrew College Rabbinical School, Newton Rabbi Jordana Battis, Temple Beth Shalom, Needham Rabbi Joshua Breindel, Temple Anshe Amunim, Pittsfield Rabbi Cari Bricklin-Small, Temple Shir Tikvah, Winchester Rabbi Caryn Broitman, Martha's Vineyard Hebrew Center, Vineyard Haven Cantor Lisa Doob, Temple Isaiah, Lexington Rabbi Judy Epstein, Manchester Rabbi Michael Fel, Temple Emunah, Lexington Rabbi Ilana Foss, Brockton Rabbi Jeff Foust, Spiritual Life Center at Bentley University, Waltham Rabbi Ronne Friedman, Temple Israel of Boston Rabbi Rachel Gurevitz, Congregation B'nai Shalom, Westborough Rabbi Eric Gurvis, Temple Shalom of Newton Rabbi Eliana Jacobowitz, Temple B'nai Brith, Somerville Rabbi Suzie Jacobson, Temple Israel of Boston Rabbi Daniel Klein, Hebrew College, Newton Rabbi Cherie Koller-Fox, Chapel Service, Newton Rabbi Claudia Kreiman, Temple Beth Zion, Brookline Rabbi Karen Landy, Havurat Shalom of Andover Rabbi Michele Lenke, Temple Beth Shalom, Needham Rabbi David Lerner, Temple Emunah, Lexington Rabbi Devon Lerner, Central Reform Temple, Boston Rabbi Darby Leigh, Kerem Shalom, Concord Rabbi Elias Lieberman, Falmouth Jewish Congregation Aldebran Longabaugh-Burg, Board Member, Welcoming Faiths of the Merrimack Valley and Havurat Shalom of Andover Rabbi Deborah Mangan, Hope Hospice, Barnstable Rabbi Emily Mathis, Temple Tiferet Shalom, Peabody Rabbi Bernard H Mehlman, Temple Israel of Boston Rabbi Margot Meitner, Congregation Agudas Achim, Attleboro Rabbi Barbara Penzner, Temple Hillel B'nai Torah, West Roxbury Rabbi Jill Perlman, Temple Isaiah, Lexington Rabbi Shoshana Perry, Congregation Shalom, Chelmsford Rabbi Rachel Silverman, Congregation Kehillath Israel, Brookline Rabbi Matthew Soffer, Temple Israel of Boston Rabbi Robin Sparr, Temple Emanuel, Lowell Rabbi Toba Spitzer, Congregation Dorshei Tzedek, West Newton Cantor Rosalie Toubes, Temple Tiferet Shalom, Peabody Joanna Ware, Boston Regional Director, Keshet Rabbi Benjamin Weiner, Jewish Community of Amherst Pastor Jeffrey Goodrich, Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, Westborough Reverend Kathleen Reed, University Lutheran Church, Cambridge Pastor Kari Jo Verhulst, University Lutheran Church, Cambridge Reverend Steven Wilco, Immanuel Lutheran Church, Amherst Resident Bishop Sudarshana Devadhar, New England Conference Reverend James McPhee, District Superintendent, New England Conference Reverend Allan Anderson, Crawford Memorial, Winchester Reverend Sandra Bonnette-Kim, Grace United Methodist Church, Lynn Reverend We Hyun Chang, Belmont-Watertown United Methodist Church Cheryl Charles, Certified Lay Person, First Church of Winthrop Reverend Dr. Yoo-Yun Cho-Chang, Woburn United Methodist Church Pastor Rebecca Cho, First United Methodist Church, Stoughton Reverend James Cox, Provincetown United Methodist Church Reverend Nizzi Digan, Good Shepherd United Methodist of Malden Pastor Eric Dupee, Crawford Memorial United Methodist Church Reverend Dr. Sarah Mount Elewononi, South Walpole United Methodist Reverend Sara Garrard, Old West Church, Boston Pastor Steve Gasnaas-Holmes, St. Matthew’s United Methodist Church Reverend Cynthia Good, Lexington United Methodist Church Reverend Marion Grant, Calvary United Methodist Church, Arlington Reverend Will Green, Ballard Vale United Church Reverend Joel Guillemette, Sudbury United Methodist Church Reverend Justin Hildebrandt, Connexion, Somerville Reverend Dr. Susan Jarek-Glidden, Quincy Community United Methodist Church Pastor Bob Jon, Westport Point United Methodist Pastor Zachary Kerzee, Simple Church, Grafton Pastor Laurie Kilgore, First United Methodist Church of Hamilton Reverend Stacey Lanier, First United Methodist Church of Melrose Reverend Dr. Hope Luckie, Christ Church United Methodist, Wellesley Reverend Kenneth Mantler, Bridgewater United Methodist Church Reverend Stephen Melius, Weston United Methodist Church Reverend Susan Morrison, Holy Trinity United Methodist Church, Danvers Reverend John Mueller, Trinity United Methodist Church, Springfield Reverend David Myers, Rockport and Gloucester United Methodist Churches Kevin Nelson, Home Missioner for Harvard-Epworth United Methodist Church Reverend Ruth Oduor (Retired), Lynnfield Reverend Larry Peacock, North Andover Reverend Karen Peters, St. Stephen’s United Methodist Church, Marblehead Pastor Alecia Reeves-Freeman, First Church of Winthrop Executive Director Anne Robertson, Massachusetts Bible Society, Newton Centre Pastor Valerie Roberts-Toler, Blackstone Valley United Methodist Reverend Erica Robinson-Johnson, New England Conference Pastor Doug Robinson-Johnson, United Parish of Auburndale Pastor Jonathan E. Rodríguez-Cintrón, East Saugus United Methodist Church Reverend Tyler Schwaller, Harvard Divinity School, Cambridge Reverend Janet Smith Rushton, Old South United Methodist Church, Reading Reverend Deborah Shipp, First United Methodist Church, North Andover Reverend Herbert Taylor, Harvard-Epworth United Methodist Church Reverend Dr. Julie Todd, Lawrence Reverend Kelly Turney, East Longmeadow United Methodist Church Reverend Carol Van Buskirk, Old South United Methodist Church of Reading Reverend David Weekley, St. Nicholas United Methodist Church, Hull Reverend Jay Williams, Union United Methodist Church, Boston Alexx Wood, Spiritual Care Coordinator, Newbury Court Reverend Matthew Wissell, Eastham United Methodist Church Pastor Trey Witzel, Tewksbury United Methodist Church President William Schulz, Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, Cambridge Reverend Alice Anacheka-Nasemann, Unitarian Church of Marlborough and Hudson Reverend Sara Ascher, Unitarian Universalists of Wellesley Minister Kelly Asprooth-Jackson, First Parish Church in Beverly Reverend Lee Bluemel, The North Parish of North Andover Reverend Tom Bozeman, Interim Minister, Unitarian Universalist Society Of Grafton And Upton, Grafton, MA Reverend David M. Bryce, The First Church In Belmont Reverend Frank Clarkson, Unitarian Universalist Church of Haverhill Hillary Collins-Gilpatrick, Ministerial Intern, Follen Church, Lexington Reverend Clyde Grubbs, Interim Minister, First Parish Cambridge Reverend Katie Lee Crane, Theodore Parker Church, West Roxbury Reverend Kim K. Crawford Harvie, Senior Minister, Arlington Street Church Reverend Judith Deutsch, Minister Emerita, First Parish Sudbury (member) Reverend Dr. Anita Farber-Robertson, First Parish Church, Unitarian Universalist of Northborough Reverend Shawn Fiedler, King’s Chapel, Boston Reverend Mark Harris, First Parish of Watertown Reverend Lara Hoke, Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Andover Reverend Dan Hotchkiss, Congregational Consultant, Middleboro Reverend Dan King, First Congregational Parish in Kingston Reverend Paul Langston-Daley, Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, New Bedford Reverend Jason Lydon, First Church Jamaica Plain Reverend Dr. Stephanie May, First Parish in Wayland Joanna Lubkin, Affiliated Community Minister, Arlington Street Church, Boston Reverend Sarah Millspaugh, Unitarian Universalist Association, Boston Reverend Elizabeth Nguyen, Associate Community Minister, First Parish in Cambridge Reverend Tom O'Brien, Memorial Congregational Church, Sudbury Reverend Sue Phillips, Regional Lead, Unitarian Universalist Association, Boston Reverend Kenneth Reeves, Concord Reverend Kenneth Sawyer, Minister Emeritus, First Parish in Wayland Reverend Catie Scudera, First Parish in Needham Reverend Catherine Senghas, Unitarian Universalist Church of Reading Reverend Fred Small, Community Minister Arlington Street Church, Boston Jane Spickett, Co-Chair of Welcoming Congregation Coordinating Committee, Follen Church, Lexington Reverend Erin Splaine, First Unitarian Society in Newton Reverend Claire Feingold Thoryn, Follen Church, Lexington Reverend Ann Willever, First Universalist Society, Franklin Reverend Dr. Michelle Walsh, Tuckerman Creative Ministries for Justice & Healing, Boston Reverend John Millspaugh, Consulting Minister to the New England Regional Office of the Unitarian Universalist Association Debra Zagaeski, Director of Religious Education, Follen Community Church, Lexington Massachusetts UCC Conference Minister and President, Jim Antal Associate Conference Minister Reverend Kelly Gallagher, Massachusetts Conference of the United Church of Christ Associate Conference Minister and Pastor Reverend Jill Graham, Massachusetts Conference of the United Church of Christ Associate Conference Minister for Policy and Finance Dawn Hammond, Massachusetts Conference of the United Church of Christ Associate Conference Minister Reverend Jonathan New, Massachusetts Conference of the United Church of Christ Associate Conference Minister Reverend Donald Remick, Massachusetts Conference of the United Church of Christ Associate Conference Minister for Communications Tiffany Vail, Massachusetts Conference of the United Church of Christ Associate Conference Minister Reverend Wendy Vanderhart, Massachusetts Conference of the United Church of Christ Reverend Susie Allen, The Boxborough Church Reverend Tadd Allman-Morton, Westhampton Congregational United Church of Christ Community Minister Megan Berkowitz, First Church Somerville Reverend Liz Brimm, Wrentham Developmental Center Reverend Sarah Buteux, First Churches of Northampton Reverend Barbara Callaghan, Hancock United Church of Christ, Lexington Kathie Carpenter, Chair of Open and Affirming Ministry Team, Massachusetts Conference United Church of Christ and Needham Congregational Reverend Quentin Chin, United Church of Christ of Lenox Reverend June Cooper, Theologian in the City, Old South Church, Boston Minister Noelle Dattilo, Prison Minister, Worcester Fellowship Madelyn Downer, Director of Youth Ministries for Congregational Church of Needham Reverend David Ebert, Old South Church, Boston Reverend John Edgerton, Old South Church, Boston Reverend Judith Hanlon, Hadwen Park Congregational Church Associate Pastor Reebee Girash, The Eliot Church of Newton Pastor Laura Gronberg, Second Congregational Church of Boxford Reverend Victoria Guest, First Congregational Church in Natick Associate Pastor Courtney Jones, Hope Central Church, Jamaica Plain Reverend Laura Ruth Jarrett, Hope Central Church, Jamaica Plain Bill Ladd, Student Minister, First Congregational Church Natick Reverend Kate Layzer, First Church in Cambridge Reverend Jack Patrick Lewis, Framingham Reverend Lauren Lorincz, Pilgrim Congregational Church, Lexington Reverend Kay Loudon, Hampshire Association of United Church of Christ Reverend Chris Mereschuk, Haydenville Congregational Church Reverend Kimberly Murphy, Islands Mission Hub of the Episcopal Diocese Music Minister Larry Mynatt, Old South Church, Boston Reverend William Neil, First Congregational Church of Lee Pastor Ted Newcomb, The Congregational Church of Mansfield Reverend Dr. Ken Orth, Old South Church, Boston Reverend Dr. A. Rand Peabody, Old South Church, Boston Associate Pastor Peter Preble, Bethany Congregational Church, Quincy Reverend Bill Ragan, Ministerial Associate, Payson Park, Belmont Yohah Ralph, Authorized Minister, Haydenville Congregational Church Reverend Nancy Richardson, Old South Church, Boston Reverend Dr. Elizabeth Rice-Smith, Old South Church, Boston Reverend Julie Rogers, Church of the Covenant, Boston Reverend Henry Schoenfield, First Church Somerville Reverend Daniel Smith, Senior Minister, First Church Cambridge Reverend Lisa Stedman, First Congregational Church of Reading Reverend Dr. Nancy Taylor, Old South Church, Boston Reverend Jennifer Valentine, First Congregational Church of Southampton Reverend Derek van Gulden, The First Congregational Church of Rockport Reverend Dana Allen Walsh, South Church in Andover Theologian in Residence Donald Wells, Old South Church, Boston Reverend Heike Werder, Congregational Church of Needham Reverend Alex Shea Will, South Church in Andover Pastor Christina Williams, First Congregational Church of Hadley Reverend Vernon Wright, Senior Minister, Second Congregational Church of Attleboro Reverend Elinor Yeo, Old South Church, Boston Reverend Richard W. Yeo, Old South Church, Boston Reverend Victoria Perry, Universal Life Church of Massachusetts Mother Sandra Hutchinson, Oratory of St, Catherine of Siena Peggy Hayes, President, Dignity Boston Becky Duddy-Burke, Vice President, Dignity Boston Marianne Duddy-Burke, Executive Director, Dignity Boston Church of Our Saviour, Milton (Episcopal) Common Street Spiritual Center, Natick (American Baptist Church of USA) First Church in Cambridge, Congregational (United Church of Christ) First Church Somerville, United Church of Christ The First Congregational Church of Rockport, United Church of Christ First Congregational Church, United Church of Christ of Amherst Hope Central Church, Jamaica Plain (United Church of Christ/Disciples of Christ) Old South Church in Boston (United Church of Christ) Temple Anshe Amunim, Pittsfield (Reform Jewish) Temple B'nai Abraham, Beverly (Jewish) Temple B'nai Brith, Somerville (Jewish) Temple Hillel B'nai Torah, West Roxbury (Jewish Reconstructionist) Simple Church, Grafton (United Methodist Church) Temple Emanuel, Lowell (Jewish, Reform) Union United Methodist Church, Boston First United Methodist Church, North Andover Dignity Boston, Peggy Hayes, President (Catholic) Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, Sheila Decter, Executive Director Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston, Jeremy Burton, Executive Director Union for Reform Judaism Unitarian Universalist Mass Action Network, Laura Wagner, Executive Director Arlington Street Church, Arlington MA East Saugus United Methodist Church East Longmeadow United Methodist Church Immanuel Lutheran Church, Amherst Unitarian Universalist Society of Martha’s Vineyard Temple Emanuel, Lowell Congregation B’nai Shalom, Westborough Quincy Community United Methodist Church First Church Somerville Haydenville Congregational Church Memorial Congregational Church, Sudbury First Unitarian Church, Newton Unitarian Church of Marlborough and Hudson First Parish in Needham Temple B’nai Abraham, Beverly Temple Anshe Amunim, Pittsfield Temple Beth Shalom, Needham Second Congregational Church of Attleboro Congregational Church of Lee Old Cambridge Baptist Church Falmouth Jewish Congregation Bristol Trinity Episcopal Church Trinity Episcopal Church, Wrentham St. Anne’s in-the-Fields, Lincoln Oratory of St. Catherine of Siena, Beverly Parish of St. Paul, Newton Ma’yan Tikvah, Wayland Christ Church Episcopal, Waltham First Congregational Church of Reading Old South Church, Boston The First Congregational Church of Rockport Ballardvale United Church, Andover Woburn United Methodist Church First United Methodist Church, North Andover St. Nicholas United Methodist Church, Hull Old South United Methodist Church, Reading Lexington United Methodist Church Temple Emunah, Lexington Union United Methodist Church, Boston First Churches, Northampton First Congregational Church of Southampton Trinity Chapel, Shirley Follen Church, Lexington Trinity Church, Northborough The Church of the Good Shepherd, Wareham Worcester Fellowship The Congregational Church of Mansfield Temple Isaiah, Lexington Congregational Church of Needham Temple B’nai Brith, Somerville Follen Community Church, Lexington Church of the Covenant, Boston Arlington Street Church, Arlington MA East Saugus United Methodist Church East Longmeadow United Methodist Church Immanuel Lutheran Church, Amherst Unitarian Universalist Society of Martha’s Vineyard Temple Emanuel, Lowell Congregation B’nai Shalom, Westborough Quincy Community United Methodist Church First Church Somerville Haydenville Congregational Church Memorial Congregational Church, Sudbury First Unitarian Church, Newton Unitarian Church of Marlborough and Hudson First Parish in Needham Temple B’nai Abraham, Beverly Temple Anshe Amunim, Pittsfield Temple Beth Shalom, Needham Second Congregational Church of Attleboro Congregational Church of Lee Old Cambridge Baptist Church Falmouth Jewish Congregation Bristol Trinity Episcopal Church Trinity Episcopal Church, Wrentham St. Anne’s in-the-Fields, Lincoln Oratory of St. Catherine of Siena, Beverly Parish of St. Paul, Newton Ma’yan Tikvah, Wayland Christ Church Episcopal, Waltham First Congregational Church of Reading Old South Church, Boston The First Congregational Church of Rockport Ballardvale United Church, Andover Woburn United Methodist Church First United Methodist Church, North Andover St. Nicholas United Methodist Church, Hull Old South United Methodist Church, Reading Lexington United Methodist Church Temple Emunah, Lexington Union United Methodist Church, Boston First Churches, Northampton First Congregational Church of Southampton Trinity Chapel, Shirley Follen Church, Lexington Trinity Church, Northborough The Church of the Good Shepherd, Wareham Worcester Fellowship The Congregational Church of Mansfield Temple Isaiah, Lexington Congregational Church of Needham Temple B’nai Brith, Somerville Follen Community Church, Lexington Church of the Covenant, Boston Universal Life Church of Massachusetts Dignity Boston (Catholic) Keshet (Jewish) Universal Life Church of Massachusetts Dignity Boston (Catholic) Keshet (Jewish)

Arguments[edit]

Freedom Massachusetts argued that Senate Bill 2407 provided protections for transgender people that they were not offered before and that such protections are necessary due to the percentage of transgender people in Massachusetts who had previously reported experiencing harassment in places of public accommodation.^[18]

Kasey Suffredini, president of strategy at Freedom for All Americans said, "It’s a fight of tremendous local significance because it impacts the very basic ability of transgender people to just about their daily lives in public. It also has national significance because it is the first statewide vote on transgender non-discrimination protections in our country’s history, and the anti-transgender activist who put this question on the ballot have said if they are successful in Massachusetts, they will work to roll back LGBT protections across the country."^[19]

Alexandra Chandler (D), a trasngender candidate for Congress in Massachusetts' third district, said, "I’m running for Congress to be a voice for the trans kids out there. I want our country to be a place where you can live, and learn, and where you can be proud of whoever you are. My right to go to a grocery store [safely] ... is on the ballot here, too. I am in that block with the vulnerable."^[20]

Phil Sherwood, campaign manager of Freedom For All Massachusetts made the following arguments:^[21]

“

MA is seen as a leader nationally on equal rights and standing up for the safety and dignity of all residents. Whether it’s Marriage Equality, bullying or standing up to outside hate groups – MA has earned the reputation on being on the right side of many important issues. If this anti-discrimination law is stripped here in MA outside groups will much more aggressive taking their agenda to other states in an effort to target minority groups for exclusion. [...] Many people though do not completely understand what it means to be transgender or know why these equal protection laws were needed in the first place. This creates a scenario where outside special interest groups can push fear-based misinformation campaigns under the guise of protecting the public from predators. Those seeking to repeal this antidiscrimination law seek to single out people who are different and push an agenda that undermines fairness. Their actions foster an environment where kids in particular are more likely to be harassed for being different.[13]

”

Sherwood also argued that repealing the transgender anti-discrimination law would hurt business:^[22]

“

Boston is a great option for Amazon to locate its HQ2, in large part, because our state laws ensure that industry giants like Amazon are able to attract talented employees of all backgrounds who know they are fully protected under the law here. As Massachusetts voters face a dangerous and anti-transgender ballot question this November, it is important to know what impact that vote will have on a decision as monumental as this one. Let’s work together to make Boston as desirable a location as possible for all business.[13]

”

The Boston Bar Association stated the following:^[23]

“

By passing An Act Relative to Transgender Antidiscrimination [the bill decided by this veto referendum], Massachusetts ensured that necessary antidiscrimination protections extended to places like restaurants and malls and allows people to use the restroom or locker room that matches their gender identity.[13]

”

Tim Foley, assistant division director at 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers EastThe 1199 SEIU MA PAC was a top donor to the "yes" vote campaign., said the following in a statement to Ballotpedia:^[24]

“

As the most diverse labor union in the state and the country, the leadership and members of 1199SEIU vehemently oppose discrimination of any type – whether based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender. The current law, wisely passed by the state legislature, protects individuals and families all across Massachusetts. The law is working and ensuring transgender people are not harassed or discriminated against in public places. While the initial intent of the ballot question was to roll back these protections, voters have an opportunity this November to send a strong message that discrimination of any kind has no place in Massachusetts.[13]

”

The Mayors Against LGBT Discrimination Coalition, including more than 300 mayors and town managers across the country, chaired by mayors Muriel Bowser of the District of Columbia, Jenny Durkan of Seattle, Sly James of Kansas City, Mo., and Jim Kenney of Philadelphia, made the following statement:^[25]

“

The Mayors Against LGBT Discrimination coalition is committed to ensuring basic protections so that all people are treated fairly, no matter who they are or where they live. As mayors, we uniquely know the importance of moving forward to strengthen communities and provide a welcoming, safe environment for all neighbors and businesses, and we oppose any ballot measure that would take the state backwards by removing critical protections.[13]

”

Official argument[edit]

The following official argument was submitted by Susan Donnelly of Freedom for All Massachusetts in favor of a "yes" vote on Question 3:^[12]

“

Vote YES to keep in place current law that: Keeps Massachusetts welcoming and fair. Prevents discrimination in places like stores, restaurants, and hospitals. Protects transgender youth and adults. Lets transgender people go about their daily lives, including in restrooms, which we all need to use. We all value safety and privacy, including transgender people. This law has been in place for two years with no increase in public safety incidents. Harassing people remains illegal, and those who commit crimes are still prosecuted. That’s why experts who support the law include: Law enforcement, including the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association and Massachusetts Major City Chiefs of Police. Women’s organizations and the Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence. The Massachusetts Parent-Teacher Association. Transgender people are our neighbors, coworkers, and friends who contribute to our thriving communities. A YES vote upholds basic values of fairness, dignity, and respect for all.[13]

”

Support for "no" vote[edit]

Note: For this referendum, individuals who supported a "no" vote were those who favor repealing SB 2407. These individuals collected signatures and placed the measure on the ballot.

Keep MA Safe led the campaign for a "no" vote on this veto referendum and backed the signature petition effort that qualified the veto referendum for the ballot.^[26]

Supporters for "no" vote[edit]

• Massachusetts Family Institute^[27]

Arguments[edit]

Keep MA Safe argued that Senate Bill 2407 should be repealed because it could negatively impact the safety of women and children in public areas.^[28]

Keep MA Safe made the following argument:^[29]

“

What the citizens of Massachusetts weren’t told was that there were only a handful of allegations of such denial of access to public accommodations and that those claims were already covered under state law. What changed on October first of last year was access to bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and changing facilities. It is now a potential criminal civil rights violation for a woman or young girl to object when a biological male undresses next to her in a public facility. This is not progress for our Commonwealth. We should not require women to sacrifice their privacy for the sake of sexual charades. Unfortunately, this is exactly what we’ve seen happen in the last year. In December, a woman was photographed by a man lurking in the ladies’ room of a T.J. Maxx in Plainville, MA. When she asked employees for help, they seemed torn regarding what to do. Do they call the police, and risk being brought up on hate crimes charges? Or do they protect themselves and their employer by looking the other way and side with the man over the frightened woman? The law is now weighted to benefit those who would violate private spaces. How many cases go unreported?[13]

”

Kaeley Triller Haver, director of communications for the Just Want Privacy Campaign, wrote the following in an article about transgender individuals and bathroom bills:^[30]

“

Let me be clear: I am not saying that transgender people are predators. Not by a long shot. What I am saying is that there are countless deviant men in this world who will pretend to be transgender as a means of gaining access to the people they want to exploit, namely women and children. It already happens. Just Google Jason Pomares, Norwood Smith Burnes, or Taylor Buehler, for starters. While I feel a deep sense of empathy for what must be a very difficult situation for transgender people, at the beginning and end of the day, it is nothing short of negligent to instate policies that elevate the emotional comfort of a relative few over the physical safety of a large group of vulnerable people.[13]

”

Representative Jim Lyons (R) made the following argument:^[31]

“

We think that's simply inappropriate and something that we should not be promoting here in Massachusetts. In addition, the legislation that was approved basically allows five-year-olds to determine whether they're boys or girls. The focus, though, of our legislation [legislation to roll back provisions of the bill targeted by this veto referendum] is to get back to a normalcy where we recognize the difference between male and female. We really think that ought to remain the norm as opposed to what this legislation [the bill targeted by this veto referendum] does which basically [turns] gender upside down.[13]

”

Official argument[edit]

The following official argument was submitted by Debby Dugan of Keep MA Safe in support of a "no" vote on Question 3:^[12]

“

Voting NO repeals the “Bathroom Bill” law and prevents men from entering women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, and intimate spaces. The law violates the privacy and safety of women by allowing any man identifying as a woman, including convicted sex offenders, to share women’s facilities. Under the law, any attempt to block a man from entering the women’s locker room, dressing room, or bathroom could result in individual penalties of up to $50,000 and a year in prison. Businesses are also affected, like a female spa owner who faced a discrimination claim for declining to wax the genitals of a man identifying as a woman. No law should make women and girls feel unsafe and exploit their privacy and security. The MA Legislature passed a law that goes too far, even refusing to include a provision to exclude convicted sex offenders. A NO vote protects women’s privacy and safety.[13]

”

Campaign advertisements[edit]

The following video was released by Keep MA Safe:^[32]

Title: "No On 3, Keep MA Safe"

Campaign finance[edit]

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Massachusetts ballot measures

Total campaign contributions:
Support for "yes"	$6,084,831.59
Support for "no"	$663,421.76

One committee, Freedom for All Massachusetts, Inc., was registered to support a "yes" vote on Question 3. Freedom for All Massachusetts opposed the intention of the veto referendum petition sponsors. The committee raised $6.08 million in total, including $887,563 in-kind contributions. The largest donor was the Freedom Massachusetts Education Fund, which gave $507,200.^[9]

Two committees, Keep MA Safe and No to 3, were registered to sponsor the referendum petition effort and to support a "no" vote on Question 3. The committees raised $663,422, including $198,417 in in-kind services. The largest donor was the Massachusetts Family Institute which gave $122,511 in in-kind services.^[10]

Support for a "yes" vote[edit]

Committees in support of a "yes" vote on Question 3, Massachusetts Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Referendum "Yes" vote committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Freedom for All Massachusetts, Inc. $5,197,268.40 $887,563.19 $5,185,008.08 Total $5,197,268.40 $887,563.19 $5,185,008.08

"Yes" vote totals Total raised: $6,084,831.59 Total spent: $6,072,571.27

Donors[edit]

The following were the top donors who contributed to the Freedom Massachusetts committee:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Freedom Massachusetts Education Fund	$507,200.12	$0.00	$507,200.12
American Civil Liberties Union, Inc.	$400,000.00	$104,143.82	$504,143.82
Human Rights Campaign	$250,000.00	$75,930.87	$325,930.87
Freedom for All Americans	$83,269.69	$208,603.92	$291,873.61

Support for a "no" vote[edit]

Committees in support of a "no" vote on Question 3, Massachusetts Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Referendum "No" vote committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Keep MA Safe $464,319.50 $198,371.58 $463,074.60 No to 3 $685.00 $45.68 $685.00 Total $456,089.11 $198,417.26 $465,004.50

"No" vote totals Total raised: $663,421.76 Total spent: $661,491.86

Donors[edit]

The following were the top donors who contributed to the opposition campaign:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Massachusetts Family Institute	$0.00	$122,510.82	$122,510.82
Carol Breuer	$110,000.00	$0.00	$110,000.00
Raymond Ruddy	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
Renew Massachusetts Coaltion	$0.00	$43,278.15	$43,278.15
Walter Weld	$35,000.00	$0.00	$35,000.00

Methodology[edit]

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Polls[edit]

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2018 ballot measure polls

2018[edit]

Whether to keep or repeal law that allows transgender people to use public facilities consistent with their gender identity
Poll	Support keeping law	Support repealing law	Undecided/refused	Margin of error	Sample size
Boston Globe/UMass Lowell poll 10/1/18 - 10/7/18	73.0%	21.0%	6.0%	+/-4.4	791
WBUR News/MassInc Polling Group poll 9/17/18 - 9/21/18	71.0%	21.0%	8.0%	+/-4.4	506
Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll 9/13/18 - 9/17/18	73%	17%	9%	+/-4.4	500
MassINC Polling Group 5/22/18 - 5/26/18	52%	38%	11%	+/-4.4	501
AVERAGES	67.25%	24.25%	8.5%	+/-4.4	574.5
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

• A Boston Globe/UMass Lowell poll conducted October 1-7, 2018, found that 73 percent of respondents said they would vote yes on the measure, 21 percent would vote no, and 6 percent were undecided.

• A WBUR News/MassInc Polling Group poll conducted September 17-21, 2018, found that 71 percent of respondents would vote yes on Question 3 and 21 percent would vote no. Ten percent of respondents remained undecided.

• A poll conducted by Suffolk University and the Boston Globe from September 13-17, 2018, found that 73 percent of respondents supported keeping the law while 17 percent supported repealing the law. Nine percent were undecided.

• A May 2018 poll, commissioned by WBUR News and conducted by Mass INC Polling Group, asked 501 registered Massachusetts voters, "There may be a measure on the 2018 ballot that would repeal the law which allowed transgender people to use public restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identities, regardless of their sex at birth. Would you support or oppose repealing this law? PROBE: And do you strongly (support/oppose) this idea, or just somewhat?" Thirty-eight percent of voters polled supported repealing the law that allowed transgender people to use bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity regardless of their sex at birth. Fifty-two percent of voters polled supported allowing transgender people to continue using the restrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity.^[33]

2016[edit]

Senate Bill 2407
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Refused	Margin of error	Sample size
Suffolk University/Boston Globe 5/2/16 - 5/5/16	53.2%	30.0%	15.0%	1.8%	+/-4.4	500
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

• In a May 2016 Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll, voters were asked the following question about Senate Bill 2407:^[34]

“

Currently, there are public accommodations bills before the Massachusetts legislature that protect the civil rights of transgender people, including their right to use the restroom that conforms to their gender identity. Do you support or oppose passage of such a bill?[13]

”

Media editorials[edit]

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements

Support[edit]

• The Daily Free Press said: "Repealing the existing law would only make everyday life more dangerous for people who already face more than their fair share of discrimination. If our state doesn’t stand by minority groups, it reflects poorly on all of us."^[35]
• The Telegram & Gazette said: "Transgender rights that lift the fear of discrimination from a group of people have not been an issue since being adopted in Massachusetts two years ago. Opponents who play up fears of men using a pretext to harass and attack women in restrooms or locker rooms ignore that such behavior is already against the law."^[36]

Opposition[edit]

• The New Boston Post wrote: "Voting No on 3 simply means that only women and girls who are biologically female should be allowed to use women’s public facilities. We want to avoid the possibility that our loved ones might be exposed to a biological man who exploits this radical law, especially a man who is a convicted sex offender, which is currently allowed by the law. The safety threat is real. This law sets up a look-but-don’t-touch scenario, making it impossible for women and girls to speak up effectively for themselves until after they have been assaulted or otherwise harmed."^[37]

Background[edit]

See also: Transgender bathroom access laws in the United States

Status of gender identity anti-discrimination laws in Massachusetts[edit]

Senate Bill 2407 went into effect on October 1, 2016, because opponents who gathered signatures for this veto referendum effort collected enough signatures to put the law before voters, but not enough to suspend the law until the election. Going into the election, there were various Massachusetts laws and policies prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity besides the provisions regarding public accommodations provided by Senate Bill 2407 that would be upheld by the approval of this measure.^[2][38]

• In 2011, the state legislature passed House Bill 3810 former Gov. Deval Patrick signed it into law on November 23, 2011. The law prohibited discrimination based on gender identity regarding housing, employment, credit, and post-secondary education. The law went into effect on July 1, 2012.^[39][40]

• On February 7, 2011, former Gov. Deval Patrick issued executive order No. 526 prohibiting discrimination based on the following characteristics: "race, color, age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, religion, creed, ancestry, national origin, disability, veteran's status (including Vietnam-era veterans), or background."^[41]

• On June 16, 2005, a regulation was passed by the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security establishing gender bias as grounds for qualifying a crime as a hate crime and requiring the reporting provisions for hate crimes in state law to apply.^[42]

Lawsuit[edit]

In October 2016, a national group called the Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit challenging Senate Bill 2407 on behalf of four Massachusetts churches. Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that under the anti-discrimination law, churches might be considered places of public accommodation, which could threaten the rights of pastors and church officials to act according to their faith. Plaintiffs requested that judges suspend the effects of the law while the lawsuit went forward.^[43] They voluntarily withdrew their case in December 2016 when the Massachusetts attorney general's office removed houses of worship as an example of a public accommodation that would be subject to Senate Bill 2407's stipulations. Steve O'Ban, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, said the following regarding the withdrawal: "The government can’t encroach on the internal, religious practices of a church. The language revisions that our lawsuit prompted should ensure that doesn’t happen."^[44] The attorney general's office did indicate that places of worship could still be considered a public accommodation when hosting a "public, secular function."^[45][46]

Attorney general public accommodation guidelines[edit]

Below is the current definition of public accommodation and list of the examples of entities that would be subject to anti-discrimination laws provided by the Massachusetts attorney general's office:^[47]

“ M.G.L. c. 272, § 92A, defines a place of public accommodation as "any place, whether licensed or unlicensed, which is open to and accepts or solicits the patronage of the general public." Places of public accommodation can include (but are not limited to): Hotels, inns, and motels; Restaurants, bars, and other establishments serving food or drink; Theaters, concert halls, sports stadiums, and other places of entertainment; Auditoriums, convention centers, lecture halls, and other places of public gathering; Sales and rental establishments, including stores, shopping centers, automobile rental agencies, and other retail establishments; Service establishments, including laundromats, dry-cleaners, banks, barber shops, travel agents, gas stations, funeral parlors, employment agencies, and providers of professional services such as lawyers, doctors, dentists, accountants, and insurance agents; Health care facilities, including dental and medical offices, pharmacies, clinics, hospitals, and nursing homes; Transportation services; Museums, libraries, galleries, and other places of public display or collection; Parks, zoos, amusement parks, and other places of recreation; Child care centers, senior citizens centers, homeless shelters, food banks, and other social service establishments; Fitness clubs, health spas, bowling alleys, swimming pools, beaches, golf courses, and other places of exercises or recreation.[13] ”

The attorney general also released a memo providing guidelines for the implementation of the bill targeted by this veto referendum. According to the attorney general, the document was designed to "to help businesses and other places of public accommodation comply with the law" and outlined behavior that is required, forbidden, and not forbidden. This memo is available here.^[48]

Status of gender identity anti-discrimination laws in the United States[edit]

Employment and housing at the federal level[edit]

There is no federal law that explicitly prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, although it has been successfully argued that prohibitions against discrimination based on sex apply in cases of gender identity. As of 2018, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), however, "interprets and enforces Title VII's [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] prohibition of sex discrimination as forbidding any employment discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation." Likewise, as of 2018, the policy of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is that the federal Fair Housing Act, which does not explicitly mention sexual orientation or gender identity, prohibits discrimination in cases where it is "based on non-conformity with gender stereotypes."^[49][50]

Department of justice policy[edit]

In 2014 under President Obama's administration, then Attorney General Eric Holder stated that the federal department of justice would also begin interpreting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to apply to transgender people. In October 2017, however, Attorney General Jeff Session reversed Holder's ruling and stated that federal prosecutors would take the following position: "Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination encompasses discrimination between men and women but does not encompass discrimination based on gender identity per se, including transgender status." In July 2017, President Trump issued a directive banning transgender people from serving in the military. Following federal court rulings against the policy, however, the department of justice announced that it would delay appealing the rulings to the Supreme Court until an expected study on the issue was released by the Department of Defense.^[3][4][5][6]

State laws[edit]

Massachusetts is one of nineteen states, along with Washington D.C., that have implemented anti-discrimination laws regarding gender identity as of January 2018. Six other states have policies prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in state employment. Different state laws apply to separate, specific areas, such as employment, labor and the workplace, employment by public agencies, public accommodations, housing, education, credit, or some combination of these. This measure concerned public accommodations; six states besides Massachusetts had provisions prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in the area of public accommodations, as of November 6, 2018. These states were Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Oregon.^[7][51][52]

Of the 25 states without laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity, four are under divided government, and the other 21 are Republican trifectas. Of the 19 states with laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in areas besides state employment, nine are under divided government, eight are Democratic trifectas, and two are Republican trifectas. Of the six states with laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity only in the area of state employment, three are Republican trifectas and three are under divided government.

Hover over each state in the map below to see details about laws and policies in that state and the state's trifecta status.

States with gender identity anti-discrimination laws and policies (click [show] to expand)

Reports and analyses[edit]

Note: The inclusion of a report, white page, or study concerning a ballot measure in this article does not indicate that Ballotpedia agrees with the conclusions of that study or that Ballotpedia necessarily considers the study to have a sound methodology, accurate conclusions, or a neutral basis. To read a full explanation of Ballotpedia's policy on the inclusion of reports and analyses, please click here. If you would like to submit a study for inclusion on any ballot measure page, please email it as well as information about the Ballotpedia article to which it applies to editor@ballotedia.org.

"U.S. Transgender Survey: Massachusetts State Report"[edit]

The U.S. Transgender Survey (USTS) of 2015 was conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality in 2015 and released in October 2017. Out of 27,715 respondents nationwide, 1,195 reported being Massachusetts residents.

Key findings related to public accommodations and restrooms can be expanded here

“ Respondents reported being denied equal treatment or service, verbally harassed, or physically attacked at many places of public accommodation—places that provide services to the public, like retail stores, hotels, and government offices. Of respondents who visited a place of public accommodation where staff or employees thought or knew they were transgender, 30% experienced at least one type of mistreatment in the past year. This included 12% who were denied equal treatment or service, 24% who were verbally harassed, and 1% who were physically attacked because of being transgender. 10% of respondents reported that someone denied them access to a restroom in the past year. • In the past year, respondents reported being verbally harassed (12%) and sexually assaulted (1%) when accessing a restroom. 62% of respondents avoided using a public restroom in the past year because they were afraid of confrontations or other problems they might experience. 33% of respondents limited the amount that they ate or drank to avoid using the restroom in the past year.[13] ”

The full report can be read here.

"Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Laws in Public Accommodations: a Review of Evidence Regarding Safety and Privacy in Public Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Changing Rooms"[edit]

Researchers from The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law and the Department of Public Policy and Political Science at Mills College published a study in Sexuality Research and Social Policy which found that whether or not a locality has laws related to public accommodations for transgender people has no effect on criminal incidents in restrooms, locker rooms, or other public spaces.^[53]

Lead author Amira Hasenbush said, "Opponents of public accommodations laws that include gender identity protections often claim that the laws leave women and children vulnerable to attack in public restrooms. But this study provides evidence that these incidents are rare and unrelated to the laws.”^[53]

The abstract of the report can be expanded here.

“ Legislation, regulations, litigation, and ballot propositions affecting public restroom access for transgender people increased drastically in the last three years. Opponents of gender identity inclusive public accommodations nondiscrimination laws often cite fear of safety and privacy violations in public restrooms if such laws are passed, while proponents argue that such laws are needed to protect transgender people and concerns regarding safety and privacy violations are unfounded. No empirical evidence has been gathered to test such laws’ effects. This study presents findings from matched pairs analyses of localities in Massachusetts with and without gender identity inclusive public accommodation nondiscrimination ordinances. Data come from public record requests of criminal incident reports related to assault, sex crimes, and voyeurism in public restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms to measure safety and privacy violations in these spaces. This study finds that the passage of such laws is not related to the number or frequency of criminal incidents in these spaces. Additionally, the study finds that reports of privacy and safety violations in public restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms are exceedingly rare. This study provides evidence that fears of increased safety and privacy violations as a result of nondiscrimination laws are not empirically grounded. [13] ”

The full report can be read here.

Yvette Ollada, a consultant for opposition committee Keep MA Safe, said that the researchers shared the report with support committee Freedom For All Massachusetts before it was publicly available and denied the same access to Keep MA Safe. Ollada said there was "an obvious conflict of interest on the part of the researchers and publishers... This speaks to the bias of the researchers and publishers at UCLA, that they would withhold the study from one political campaign and share it with another."^[54]

Rachel Dowd, a spokesperson for the Williams Institute, said "there was no conflict of interest in this study. The Williams Institute is an independent academic research institution. We never alter the methodology or conclusions of a study to serve the interests of any outside organization."^[54]

"Gender-Inclusion Policies and Sexual Violence: A Longitudinal Analysis of Media Reports at Target Stores"[edit]

Paul Dirks, a researcher with Woman Means Something, published a report in January of 2018 which found that sexual incidents (particularly and most significantly, voyeurism-related offenses) increased after the publication of Target’s gender-inclusion policy in April of 2016.

The abstract of the report can be expanded here.

“ Background: There is an almost complete lack of statistical data on the relationship between gender-identity policies and incidents of sexual violence in bathrooms and change rooms. Using Target stores as a case study, we analyzed 220 media-reported sexual offenses in Target stores from 2003 to August of 2017 to determine the association, if any, between their gender-identity access policy made public in April 2016 and reported sexual offenses in their stores. Results: Sexual incidents increased over the course of the entire timeframe of the media reports. In particular, voyeurism-related offenses (Upskirt and Peeping Tom) increased significantly after the publication of Target’s gender-inclusion policy in April, 2016. The three-season forced-category measurement found a 2.3x increase in the amount of upskirt incidents after the policy, and a 2.9x increase in peeping tom incidents after the policy. In a Poisson regression, using trimesters to control for seasonal variations in offenses, the fold change in rate from the four year pre-policy period to the post-policy period was 3.03 for Upskirt and 3.14 for Peeping Tom. Using a two year pre-policy period, the rate change was 2.16 times for Upskirt and 2.34 times for Peeping Tom. Conclusion: While media-loss remains a limitation in the analysis, the present study supports the theory that sex predators may take opportunities afforded by gender-inclusion policies to perpetrate sexual violence against women in public spaces. No other theory seems to account for the significant and precisely-timed increase seen in the Target reports. Further study would be helpful to compare police reports to media-reported crime and to geographically match Target with similar stores to investigate whether sexual offenses have increased elsewhere.[13] ”

The full report can be read here.

Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Massachusetts and Massachussetts initiative signature requirements

In order to place a veto referendum on the ballot in Massachusetts, supporters must submit signatures equal to 1.5 percent of the total votes cast for governor. For this petition targeting Senate Bill 2407, supporters needed to gather at least 32,375 valid signatures by October 6, 2016. The campaign supporting the veto referendum submitted 34,231 valid signatures to the secretary of state's office. The measure was certified for the November 2018 ballot on October 11, 2016.^[55]

In Massachusetts, a veto referendum petition with signatures equal to 1.5 percent of votes last cast for governor qualifies the measure for the ballot but does not suspend the targeted law. A veto referendum petition with signatures equal to 2 percent of voters last cast for governor qualifies the measure for the ballot and suspends the targeted law until and unless voters approve it the ballot. To suspend this law until the election, petitioners would have needed to collect 43,167 valid signatures. Since they collected more than 32,375 signatures but fewer than 43,167 signatures, the measure was put on the ballot, but SB 2407 went into effect on October 1, 2016.^[1]

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Paladin Petitions to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $56,056.34 was spent to collect the 32,375 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $1.73. Massachusetts Family Institute and Renew Massachusetts Coaltion provided $52,214.54 in in-kind services for signature gathering. The campaign paid Paladin Petitions $3,841.80 for signature gathering.^[10]

Senate Bill 2407 in the legislature[edit]

An earlier version of Senate Bill 2407 was first passed in the Massachusetts State Senate in May 2016 as Senate Bill 735. The two chambers of the legislature, however, did not agree on various amendments passed. A conference committee was formed to resolve differences and the bill—SB 2407—was ultimately approved as reported by the committee in both the state Senate and the state House on July 7, 2016. It was signed by Gov. Charles D. Baker (R) on July 8, 2016. The roll call for SB 2407 in the Senate on July 7, 2016, was not recorded in the Senate's journal. Therefore, the votes recorded for SB 735 in May 2016 are recorded below.^[56]

The vote totals for each chamber were as follows:^[57][58][59]

Vote in the Massachusetts State Senate May 12, 2016 Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber Number of yes votes required: 19  a Yes No Not voting Total 33 4 1 Total percent 86.84% 10.53% 2.63% Democrat 31 0 1 Republican 2 4 0

Vote in the Massachusetts House of Representatives July 7, 2016 Requirement: Simple majority of all members in both chambers Number of yes votes required: 90  a Yes No Not voting Total 118 36 6 Total percent 73.75% 22.50% 3.75% Democrat 109 11 6 Republican 9 25 0

State overview[edit]

Partisan control[edit]

This section details the partisan control of federal and state positions in Massachusetts heading into the 2018 elections.

Congressional delegation[edit]

• Following the 2016 elections, Democrats held both U.S. Senate seats in Massachusetts.
• Democrats held all 9 U.S. House seats in Massachusetts.

State executives[edit]

• As of September 2018, Democrats held 11 of 19 state executive positions, Republicans held three, and the remaining five positions were officially nonpartisan.
• The governor of Massachusetts was Republican Charlie Baker. The state held an election for governor and lieutenant governor on November 6, 2018.

State legislature[edit]

• Democrats controlled both chambers of the Massachusetts General Court. They had a 117-34 majority in the state House and a 31-7 majority in the state Senate.

Trifecta status[edit]

• Massachusetts was under divided government, meaning that the two parties shared control of the state government. Charlie Baker (R) served as governor, while Democrats controlled the state legislature.

2018 elections[edit]

See also: Massachusetts elections, 2018

Massachusetts held elections for the following positions in 2018:

• One U.S. Senate seat
• Nine U.S. House seats
• Governor and lieutenant governor
• Seven lower state executive positions
• 40 state Senate seats
• 160 state House seats
• Municipal elections in Suffolk County

Demographics[edit]

Demographic data for Massachusetts
	Massachusetts	U.S.
Total population:	6,784,240	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	7,800	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	79.6%	73.6%
Black/African American:	7.1%	12.6%
Asian:	6%	5.1%
Native American:	0.2%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0%	0.2%
Two or more:	2.9%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	10.6%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	89.8%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	40.5%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$68,563	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	13.1%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Massachusetts. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

As of July 2016, Massachusetts' three largest cities were Boston (pop. est. 685,000), Worcester (pop. est. 186,000), and Springfield (pop. est. 155,000).^[60]

State election history[edit]

This section provides an overview of federal and state elections in Massachusetts from 2000 to 2016. All data comes from the Massachusetts Secretary of State.

Historical elections[edit]

Presidential elections, 2000-2016[edit]

This chart shows the results of the presidential election in Massachusetts every year from 2000 to 2016.

Election results (President of the United States), Massachusetts 2000-2016
Year	First-place candidate	First-place candidate votes (%)	Second-place candidate	Second-place candidate votes (%)	Margin of victory (%)
2016	Hillary Clinton	60.0%	Donald Trump	32.8%	27.2%
2012	Barack Obama	60.7%	Mitt Romney	37.5%	23.2%
2008	Barack Obama	61.8%	John McCain	36.0%	25.8%
2004	John Kerry	61.9%	George W. Bush	36.8%	25.1%
2000	Al Gore	59.8%	George W. Bush	32.5%	27.3%

U.S. Senate elections, 2000-2016[edit]

This chart shows the results of U.S. Senate races in Massachusetts from 2000 to 2016. Every state has two Senate seats, and each seat goes up for election every six years. The terms of the seats are staggered so that roughly one-third of the seats are up every two years.

Election results (U.S. Senator), Massachusetts 2000-2016
Year	First-place candidate	First-place candidate votes (%)	Second-place candidate	Second-place candidate votes (%)	Margin of victory (%)
2014	Ed Markey	61.9%	Brian Herr	38.0%	23.9%
2013[61]	Ed Markey	57.3%	Gabriel Gomez	44.6%	12.7%
2012	Elizabeth Warren	53.7%	Scott Brown	46.2%	7.5%
2010[61]	Scott Brown	51.9%	Martha Coakley	47.1%	4.8%
2008	John Kerry	65.9%	Jeffrey Beatty	30.9%	35.0%
2006	Ted Kennedy	69.3%	Kenneth Chase	30.5%	38.8%
2002	John Kerry	Unopposed	--	--	Unopposed
2000	Ted Kennedy	72.7%	Jack E. Robinson III	12.9%	59.8%

Gubernatorial elections, 2000-2016[edit]

This chart shows the results of the four gubernatorial elections held between 2000 and 2016. Gubernatorial elections are held every four years in Massachusetts.

Election results (Governor), Massachusetts 2000-2016
Year	First-place candidate	First-place candidate votes (%)	Second-place candidate	Second-place candidate votes (%)	Margin of victory (%)
2014	Charlie Baker	48.4%	Martha Coakley	46.5%	1.9%
2010	Deval Patrick	48.4%	Charlie Baker	42.0%	6.4%
2006	Deval Patrick	55.6%	Kerry Healey	35.3%	20.3%
2002	Mitt Romney	49.8%	Shannon P. O'Brien	44.9%	4.9%

Congressional delegation, 2000-2016[edit]

This chart shows the number of Democrats and Republicans who were elected to represent Massachusetts in the U.S. House from 2000 to 2016. Elections for U.S. House seats are held every two years.

Congressional delegation, Massachusetts 2000-2016
Year	Republicans	Republicans (%)	Democrats	Democrats (%)	Balance of power
2016	0	0%	9	100%	D+9
2014	0	0%	9	100%	D+9
2012	0	0%	9	100%	D+9
2010	0	0%	10	100%	D+10
2008	0	0%	10	100%	D+10
2006	0	0%	10	100%	D+10
2004	0	0%	10	100%	D+10
2002	0	0%	10	100%	D+10
2000	0	0%	10	100%	D+10

Trifectas, 1992-2017[edit]

A state government trifecta occurs when one party controls both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's office.

Massachusetts Party Control: 1992-2021
Eight years of Democratic trifectas  •  No Republican trifectas
Scroll left and right on the table below to view more years.

Year	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	00	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21
Governor	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	R	R	R	R	R	R	R
Senate	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D
House	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D

Related measures[edit]

• Anchorage, Alaska, Proposition 1, Access to Public Bathrooms and Locker Rooms Based on Sex at Birth (April 2018)
• City of Houston Anti-Discrimination HERO Veto Referendum, Proposition 1 (2015)
• Maine Repeal of Ban Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination, Question 1 (1998)
• Oregon Revoke Governor’s Authority to Ban Sexual Orientation Discrimination, Measure 8 (1988)

See also[edit]

2018 measures 2018 ballot measures LGBT issues on the ballot 2018 legislative sessions

Massachusetts Massachusetts ballot measures Massachusetts ballot measure laws Transgender bathroom access laws in the United States

News and analysis Ballot measure lawsuits Ballot measure readability Ballot measure polls

External links[edit]

• Chapter 134
• Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth
• Massachusetts Attorney General, "Gender Identity Guidance for Public Accommodations," September 1, 2016
• Massachusetts 2018 Information for Voters

Support for "yes" vote[edit] Freedom Massachusetts Freedom Massachusetts Facebook Freedom Massachusetts Twitter

Support for "no" vote[edit] Keep MA Safe Keep MA Safe Facebook Keep MA Safe Twitter

Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Massachusetts Transgender Anti-Discrimination Veto referendum. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Footnotes[edit]

v • e 2018 ballot measures I&R States  • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington Non I&R States  • Alabama • Connecticut • Georgia • Hawaii • Indiana • Kentucky • Louisiana • New Hampshire • New Jersey • North Carolina • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Virginia • West Virginia • Wisconsin Political topics  • Abortion‎ • Administration of government‎ • Bond issues‎ • Business regulation‎ • Campaign finance‎ • Civil and criminal trials‎ • Civil rights‎ • Civil service‎ • Constitutional conventions‎ • Constitutional language‎ • County and municipal governance‎ • Definition of a corporation‎ • Direct democracy measures‎ • Education‎ • Elections and campaigns‎ • Energy‎ • Environment‎ • Federal constitutional issues‎ • Forests and parks‎ • Gambling‎ • Government accountability‎ • Healthcare‎ • Housing‎ • Hunting and fishing‎ • Labor and unions‎ • Law enforcement‎ • LGBT issues‎ • Marijuana‎ • Natural resources‎ • Pension‎ • Property‎ • Redistricting measures‎ • State and local government budgets, spending and finance‎ • State executive official measures‎ • State judiciary‎ • State legislatures measures‎ • Statehood‎ • Suffrage‎ • Supermajority requirements‎ • Taxes‎ • Term limits‎ • Tobacco‎ • Tort law‎ • Transportation‎ • Veterans‎ • Water‎ • Welfare‎ Other Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines and requirements • Polls • Lawsuits • Readability analysis • Signature costs • Cost per required signatures analysis • Campaign finance • Media editorial endorsements • Voter guides • Potential measures • Ballot Measure Monthly • Changes in 2018 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot • Filed initiatives

	v • e State of Massachusetts Boston (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy