National
Polling unreliable on marriage initiatives: report
Study shows campaigns do little to move voters
A new report is shedding light on the effectiveness of statewide campaigns against same-sex marriage, although the findings are raising additional questions.
The report — which examines the trend of public opinion on same-sex marriage in 33 states that have had the issue on the ballot — found efforts during campaign periods had very little impact on moving voters to oppose same-sex marriage bans on Election Day.
Additionally, the report found polling data gathered during campaigns on marriage initiatives is misleading because a greater percentage of people vote in favor of same-sex marriage bans than the percentage who tell pollsters they will support the ban.
Patrick Egan, author of the report and a gay political science professor at New York University, made the findings public Tuesday.
He said that he had limited explanations for what caused this behavior among voters. But at a press event in San Francisco, Egan explained that his report dismisses a number of theories popularly used to explain why polling data for marriage ballot questions doesn’t accurately reflect election results.
One theory that Egan advances in his report — but says he finds no evidence to support — is the idea that responders are lying to pollsters when they say they’ll vote against a same-sex marriage ban so that they seem more tolerant.
Such a phenomenon would be similar to the “Bradley effect,” a theory that polling participants would lie to pollsters by saying they’ll vote for a non-white person in an election and instead vote for a white candidate at the polls.
Egan dismissed this theory with regard to marriage initiatives after looking at several contexts in which voters may feel more social pressure to vote in opposition to bans on same-sex marriage, such as in states with a greater population of openly gay, lesbian and bisexual people, or polls conducted by live interviewers as opposed to automated pollsters.
In all these contexts, Egan said he could find “no discrepancy” in voters being more truthful about what they’re telling pollsters in certain states or in certain situations.
“All of the findings here just show that voters do not appear to be lying to public opinion pollsters when they are asked about their support for same-sex marriage bans,” Egan said.
Another theory that Egan refutes with regard to the discrepancy between polls and election results is that voters are confused about what a “yes” vote and a “no” vote entails on an initiative. Egan said this theory doesn’t hold up because polling information is as unreliable at the start of the campaign — before voters have been educated on the subject — as it is closer to Election Day.
“The gap does not become smaller over the course of the campaigns, so polls are just as accurate on the night before Election Day as they are six months out — just as inaccurate, I should say,” he said.
Egan said this theory is shown to be invalid when comparing polling data and election results from states with more educated voters to states with less educated voters.
“Even in states where voters are informed — that is, we know from other data that state residents tend to be more interested, engaged and informed about politics — we are not seeing that gap become any smaller than in states where voters don’t pay too much attention to politics at all,” Egan said.
In an attempt to determine why polling data on the marriage issue is unreliable, Egan said his answer as a political scientist is “more research is needed,” but also speculated it may relate to how pollsters determine likely voters.
Noting that most of the surveys in his report are of likely voters, Egan said pollsters could be screening out people who would vote for same-sex marriage bans on Election Day.
“That would help explain the difference we see between polling and election results, and why it’s so consistent over time,” he said.
A number of LGBT civil rights leaders at the San Francisco press conference said they intend to use the report to guide strategy for future ballot initiatives on marriage. Activists in California, where Proposition 8 ended gay nuptials in 2008, are looking to bring the issue of same-sex marriage back to the ballot to reverse the initiative in 2012.
Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, said the findings show voters are “at their least persuadable” during the course of a campaign.
“But when we look over the last decade at the amazing movement we’ve seen on what is one of the most challenging social issues to move people on, we’ve seen that the movement happens not during the campaign, but away from the campaign,” Kors said.
He noted that California in 2000 passed Prop 22, a statutory ban on same-sex marriage by 23 points, and in 2008 passed Prop 8, the constitutional ban, by four points.
“All that movement happened not in the couple months before Prop 8, but in the years between those elections,” he said.
Kors said the process is continuing in California with recent public polls showing a 50 percent or majority support for same-sex marriage.
Kate Kendell, executive director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, also said the study demonstrates efforts to change the hearts and minds of voters must be made before a campaign begins.
“In the midst of a campaign, voters are perhaps least likely to have their views changed — particularly on an issue like marriage, an issue they feel like they understand and know,” she said.
Kendell said “it’s absolutely clear” in the fight for same-sex marriage that conversations “need to happen now about who we are, our lives, our families, our children, our hopes and dreams.”
U.S. Military/Pentagon
Federal appeals court rules White House illegally banned trans troops
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says Pentagon will appeal to SCOTUS
A panel of federal appeals court judges ruled that President Donald Trump’s policy banning transgender troops likely violates their constitutional rights.
The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that Trump’s Executive Order 14183, also known as “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” was created with the intent to exclude people from the military based on their gender identity.
The policy argues that trans people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history of or signs of gender dysphoria as the cause. According to the Defense Department, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.”
The policy states that, regardless of the physical or intellectual capabilities of each applicant, it views trans military applicants as a monolith, considering them less qualified than their cisgender peers.
Despite the panel’s majority opinion issued on Monday, the first day of Pride Month, the ban remains in effect. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon to enforce the policy last year and will continue to allow it to remain in place as litigation proceeds.
The panel’s new ruling will prevent the military from discharging current service members named in the lawsuit, but it does not allow new transrecruits to join.
The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins, a Democratic appointee of President Barack Obama wrote for the majority.
Judge Justin Walker, the author of the dissenting opinion and a Republican Trump appointee, argued that the authority to determine military policy does not rest with the courts. Instead, he wrote, the Constitution grants that power to Congress through legislation and to the president as commander in chief of the armed forces.
“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the commander-in-chief,” Walker wrote.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated that an appeal is in the works, posting, “See you at SCOTUS” on X on Monday in response to the ruling.
Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, which has led the litigation since last November, applauded the decision.
“Today’s decision is a powerful vindication of the plaintiffs’ extraordinary courage and unwavering commitment to their country,” Levi said.
The Washington Blade spoke with Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott of the U.S. Army, the lead plaintiff in the case, and Levi from GLAD Law back in November.
While discussing the case and his experiences as a trans service member, Talbott said his identity is an asset rather than a hindrance, particularly when it comes to identifying problems and finding solutions, regardless of what others may think or say.
“Being transgender is not some sad thing that people go through,” Talbott told the Blade. “This is something that has taken years and years and years of dedication and discipline and research and ups and downs to get to the point where I am today … my ability to transition was essential to getting me to that point where I am today.”
He also discussed the impact of removing qualified and dedicated service members from the military, arguing that the consequences will be felt long after Trump leaves office.
“When we’re losing thousands of those qualified, experienced individuals … those are seats that are not just going to be able to be filled by anybody,” he said. “[That’s] military training that’s not going to be able to be replaced for years and years to come.”
“Every person who puts on the uniform is expected to make a tremendous amount of sacrifice,” Talbott said. “Who I am under this uniform should have no bearing on that … We shouldn’t be picking and choosing which veterans are worthy of our thanks on that day.”
Levi characterized the policy as overtly cruel and legally indefensible to the Blade.
“This policy and its rollout is even more cruel than the first in a number of ways,” Levi explained. “For one, the policy itself says that transgender people are dishonest, untrustworthy and undisciplined, which is deeply offensive and degrading and demeaning.”
She also argued that the administration’s cost justification is flawed, saying that removing and replacing trans service members is more expensive than retaining them.
“There’s no legitimate justification relating to cost … it is far more expensive to both purge the military of people who are serving and also to replace people … than to provide the minuscule amount of costs for medications other service members routinely get.”
National
Results from key Tuesday primary races
State officials in California had not called the governor’s race as of Wednesday morning but Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra appear likely to advance to the general election.
The race for governor has been scrambled several times after Kamala Harris opted not to run, Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out after sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, and Rep. Katie Porter’s campaign fizzled. Becerra would be the state’s first Latino governor since 1875 if elected. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump.
In the Los Angeles mayor’s race, the AP declared that incumbent Mayor Karen Bass will advance to the Nov. 3 runoff while former reality TV star Spencer Pratt and LA Council member Nithya Raman were competing for second place. California is notoriously slow in counting ballots and only about half of the results were available by Wednesday morning.
In San Francisco, Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener advanced to the general election in November, besting Supervisor Connie Chan, who was endorsed by House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is retiring from Congress after nearly 40 years in the House.
In Iowa, Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek won the primary for an open U.S. Senate seat, defeating state Sen. Zach Wahls. Turek will face Rep. Ashley Hinson, who won the GOP primary with President Donald Trump’s endorsement, in the general election.
The Iowa seat is open because Sen. Joni Ernst (R) decided not to seek re-election. The primary was closely watched by LGBTQ advocates because Wahls rose to national prominence after a speech he made defending marriage equality went viral in 2011. Wahls was raised by a lesbian couple.
National
White House Correspondents’ Dinner rescheduled after shooting
‘We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word’
The White House Correspondents’ Association announced on Tuesday that it has rescheduled its annual dinner for July 24 after the April event was halted when gunshots rang out at the Washington Hilton.
Cole Allen, 31, is charged with the attempted assassination of President Trump, who was in the ballroom at the time of the incident. One Secret Service officer was wounded in the attack. Officers stopped Allen before he could enter the ballroom where 2,500 journalists and politicos were having dinner and waiting for Trump to speak. It was Trump’s first time attending as president.
“We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word, especially during a year when we are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of America and everything we stand for,” said WHCA President Weijia Jiang in a statement to members.
She did not announce further details, including venue and ticketing.
Washington Blade White House reporter Joe Reberkenny was in the audience when shots were fired and reported live on social media from the scene.
This post will be updated as more details are announced.
D.C. Latinx Pride celebrates culture and heritage
Fighting ‘Rainbow Panic’ in museums
A vice president marches by our side
Leaving for a barge trip through canals of Burgundy
Federal appeals court rules White House illegally banned trans troops
Time travelers from the AIDS era
Books for a pre-Pride celebration
Barney Frank’s powerful legacy for LGBTQ federal employees
Claudia López comes up short in Colombian presidential election
