National
Election could jeopardize Iowa marriage rights
Democrats hoping to hang onto one-seat majority in Senate
Liz Mathis. (Courtesy Mathis campaign site)
Next week’s special election in Iowa could jeopardize the state’s same-sex marriage rights if a Republican candidate wins and overturns Democratic control of the upper chamber of the legislature.
In an election set for Tuesday, Democrat Liz Mathis, a former news anchor for an Iowa TV station, and Republican Cindy Golding, a businessperson, are competing to represent Iowa’s 18th District in the state Senate. The vacancy was created by the retirement of Democratic former State Sen. Swati Dandekar, who left the Senate for an appointment in Republican Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad’s administration.
Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal (D) has vowed that a state constitutional amendment overturning marriage equality — instituted in 2009 in Iowa by order of the state Supreme Court — won’t come up as long as he remains leader of the chamber. But Democrats hold a majority in the state Senate by a margin of 25-24, so a win by the Republican would make for a tie in the leadership vote and throw control of the chamber into question.
The Democratic and Republican candidates have taken opposite positions on a constitutional amendment that could overturn marriage equality in Iowa. During an interview Monday with the Cedar Rapids Editorial Board, Mathis said she supports marriage equality, while Golding called for bringing the issue to the voters.
Mathis said she agrees with the Iowa Supreme Court ruling and said she doesn’t “believe in discrimination.”
“I believe in the Iowa State Supreme Court, their unanimous ruling, appellate ruling on gay marriage,” Mathis said. “Varnum v. Brien is constitutionally sound. And I’ll just leave it at that.”
Golding, on the other hand, reiterated her belief that the “citizens of Iowa should vote on this issue.”
“I believe that once we vote on it, whether we vote it up or down, the spotlight can come off Iowa for that issue and we can focus on business, we can focus on jobs, focus on education,” Golding said. “We can focus on the things we really need to be taking our time and energy. Because nobody in our district, it was not a huge issue to either one of us as we were going around. It became an issue to us by the national media.”
Golding continued that while she doesn’t believe the ruling has “dramatically changed” Iowa, she does believe the decision has affected schools. She took issue with what she said was scholarships for LGBT students at her daughter’s high school.
“I am curious what the sexual orientation of a student should be for a scholarship in high school,” Golding said. “That troubles me.”
Asked whether there are other criteria for the scholarship, Golding replied, “Well there’s academics, but you must be a declared GLBT student in order to apply for it. That troubles me.”
The plan for Senate leadership if the election results in a tie between the number Democrats and Republicans in the chamber remains in question. During a previous tie in 2005 and 2006, Democrats and Republicans alternatively shared power in the Senate and a rule was put in place ensuring no legislation could come up without consent of both parties. But Price said Republican Leader Paul McKinley has said he won’t agree to such a rule this time around.
In February, the Iowa House passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, or even marriage-like unions. For the measure to come to the voters, it would need to first make it through the Senate before the term of the legislature expires. The measure would then have to pass both chambers of the General Assembly again in a separate session with the same language. The soonest the constitutional amendment could come before voters is 2013.
LGBT advocates in Iowa called a Democratic win in the election crucial to preserving marriage equality in Iowa as well as preventing other conservative initiatives from moving through the legislature.
Troy Price, executive director of One Iowa, said a Republican victory could remove the last barrier in the state legislature preventing the passage of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
“We could see this thing on the ballot in less than two years,” Price said. “For us, this election means quite a bit, and that’s why we’re working so hard to try and protect and maintain the pro-equality majority in the Senate.”
State Sen. Matt McCoy (D), the first openly gay person elected to the Iowa Legislature, said the election is “very crucial” for marriage equality and the progressive agenda.
“This is a must-win election as it relates to marriage equality,” McCoy said. “Obviously, civil rights for tens of thousands of people are at stake, and in addition to that, I think all the other right-wing social agenda issues are potentially at stake as well. So we could see a completely different agenda: less focus on education, less focus on human services, less focus on growing our economy and jobs and more focus on right-wing fringe political issues and agendas.”
According to the Daily Iowan, the district in question is about evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.
Price said he’s “cautiously optimistic” about a Democratic win.
“Things are looking up there from our perspective,” Price said. “We’ve been working really hard. We’ve been identifying new marriage supporters in the district and trying to do everything we can to get those people out to the polls.”
McCoy also expressed confidence in Mathis’ ability to win the election and said her supporters are “spending enormous amounts of money” to ensure she wins.
“We feel very confident that we have an excellent candidate who’s working very hard and is doing all of the right things at this point to ensure that we can win this election,” McCoy said. “So, we feel very comfortable that this is a seat we can win and hold.”
The election has also come to the attention of national groups — both pro-LGBT and anti-gay — working on the issue of marriage. The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, announced last month that it would conduct an independent expenditure campaign — along with the Family Leader, a local anti-gay group — to assist Golding with her campaign.
Brian Brown, NOM’s president, called the race a “pivotal election contest” in the effort to bring marriage rights for gay couples before the Iowa electorate.
“A proposed constitutional amendment on defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman enjoys broad-based, bipartisan legislative and voter support, but is being prevented from coming to the floor of the Senate by Majority Leader Mike Gronstal,” Brown said. “If Ms. Golding is successful in her election, we are hopeful that senators will finally have the opportunity to vote on the marriage amendment, and we expect it to pass handily.”
Among NOM’s efforts is the distribution of a mailer featuring pictures of both Mathis and Golding on opposite sides on the Scales of Justice. Mathis is pulling the scale down on her side. The caption below Mathis reads, “Liz Mathis supports gay marriage; No vote of the people.” The caption below Golding reads, “Cindy Golding supports traditional marriage; Will let the people vote!”
But NOM’s involvement reportedly hasn’t stopped there. Price said he’s heard anecdotally NOM is “knocking on doors” in the district and is set to hold an event on Sunday as part of a national press tour.
“We are aware that this is on their radar screen … so we’re doing everything we can to try and counteract that,” Price said.
Pro-LGBT national groups are also involved in the election on behalf of the Democratic candidate. Price said the election is “definitely on their radar” as well, but couldn’t immediately name any of the national pro-LGBT groups that are involved. The Human Rights Campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment on the election.
“This election is really a local election from our perspective, so we’ve just been working with out local partners to make sure that the voice of equality is heard,” Price said.
Federal Government
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
Bill described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’
Members of Congress, advocates, and people from across the country gathered outside the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday to protest proposed federal legislation that voting rights activists have deemed “Jim Crow 2.0.”
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections.
President Donald Trump has also pushed for the proposed legislation to include a section that would ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent, and prohibit trans people from participating in school or professional sports consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.
In addition to changing voter registration requirements, the bill would limit acceptable forms of identification to documents such as a birth certificate or passport — records that the Brennan Center for Justice estimates more than 21 million Americans do not have — effectively restricting access to the ballot. It would also ban online voter registration, DMV voter registration efforts, and mail-in voter registration.
A 2021 investigation by the Associated Press found that fewer than 475 people voted illegally or improperly, a tiny fraction of the estimated 160 million Americans who voted in the 2020 election.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) spoke at the event.
“It will kick millions of American citizens off the rolls. And they don’t even require you to be told,” the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate told protesters and reporters outside the Capitol. “If this law passes — and it won’t — you’re gonna show up in November … and they’ll say… sorry, you’re no longer on the voting rolls.”
He, like many other speakers, emphasized the bill in the context of American history, pointing to what he described as its racist roots and its impact on Black and brown Americans.
“I have called this act, over and over again, Jim Crow 2.0 … because they know it’s the truth.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was one of the lawmakers leading opposition to the legislation and spoke at the rally.
“It’s not just voting rights that are on the line — our democracy is on the line,” the California lawmaker said. “It’s not a voter I.D. bill. It’s a bait and switch bill.”
He added historical context, noting the significance of voting rights legislation passed more than 60 years ago. In 1965, Alabama civil rights activists marched to protest barriers to voter registration. Alabama state troopers violently attacked peaceful demonstrators at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, using tear gas, clubs, and whips against more than 500 — mostly Black — protesters.
“61 years ago — not to the day — but this week, President Lyndon Johnson came to the Capitol and addressed a joint session of Congress in the wake of Bloody Sunday and pushed Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act,” Padilla said. “61 years later, Donald Trump and this Republican majority wants to take us backwards. We’re not gonna let that happen.”
U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) also spoke, emphasizing that he views the effort as a Republican-led and Trump-backed attempt to restrict voting access, particularly among Black, brown, and predominantly Democratic communities.
“President Trump told Republicans when they were meeting behind closed doors that ‘The SAVE Act will guarantee Republicans win the midterms and ensure they do not lose an election for 50 years,’” Luján said. “The first time I think Donald Trump’s been honest … This voter suppression bill is only that. Taking away vote by mail? I hope my Republican colleagues from states that voted for Donald Trump or where vote by mail is popular have the courage and the backbone to stand up and say no to this nonsense, because their constituents are going to push back.”
U.S. Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) also spoke.
“Our Republican colleagues have already cut Medicaid, Medicare, people don’t know how they’re gonna be able to afford energy,” she said, providing context for the broader political moment. “We’re in the middle of a war that they can’t even get straight while we’re in it and don’t have a way to get out of it. And we are now faced with defending our democracy?”
She then showed the crowd something that she said has been with her throughout her political journey in Washington.
“I brought with me something that I carried on the day that I was sworn into the House of Representatives when I was elected in 2016, and I carried it with me on the day that I was sworn in as United States senator. And I also carried it with me when I was trapped up in the gallery on Jan. 6 and all I could think to do was pray … This document allowed my great great great grandfather, who had been enslaved in Georgia, to have the right to vote. We took this and turned it into a scarf. It is the returns of qualified voters and reconstruction code from 1867. This is my proof of what we’ve been through. This is also our inspiration.”
“I got to travel between the Edmund Pettus Bridge two times. And even as I thought about this moment, I recognized that while we wish we weren’t in it, while we don’t know why we’re in it, I do know we were made for it … So I came today to tell you that, um, just like the leader said, that he calls it Jim Crow 2.0. I call it Jim Crow 2.NO.”
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy organization in the U.S., also spoke, highlighting the impact of the bill’s proposed provisions affecting trans people.
“This bill is not about saving America. This bill is about stealing an election. This bill is about suppressing voters,” Robinson said. “This bill not only tries to disenfranchise voters that deserve their right to vote, it also tries to criminalize trans kids and their families … It tries to criminalize doctors providing medically necessary care for our trans youth.”
The SAVE Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 11 but has not yet been considered in the U.S. Senate.
Idaho
Idaho advances bill to restrict bathroom access for transgender residents
HB 752 passed in state House of Representatives on Monday
The Idaho House of Representatives passed House Bill 752 on Monday, a measure that would make it a crime for a person to use a bathroom other than the one designated for their “biological sex.”
The story was first reported by the Idaho Capitol Sun after the bill cleared the House.
House Bill 752 would make it a criminal offense — either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the number of prior offenses — for individuals who “knowingly and willfully” enter a bathroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex.
The bill would apply to public buildings, including government-owned spaces, and places of “public accommodation,” a category that includes private businesses.
According to the bill’s text, it would “prohibit a person from entering a restroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex; provide a penalty; provide exceptions; define terms; and declare an emergency and provide an effective date.”
A first offense would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison. A second or subsequent offense within five years would be a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.
The bill passed in a 54–15 vote on Monday. Six Republicans broke with their party’s majority to join nine Democrats in opposing the measure.
The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Cornel Rasor, a Republican from Sagle near the Washington-Idaho border, told House lawmakers that the legislation is intended to protect women and girls.
“It prevents discomfort and voyeurism escalation and assaults, while preserving single-user options and narrow exceptions so no one is denied access for emergency aid,” Rasor said.
State Rep. Chris Mathias, a Democrat from Boise, disagreed, arguing that the legislation would unfairly target transgender Idahoans.
“The truth of the matter is — and I know a lot of people don’t want to say it — but forcing people who don’t look like the sex they were assigned at birth, or transgender folks, to use other people’s bathrooms is going to put a lot of people in danger,” Mathias said.
The Idaho American Civil Liberties Union made a statement about the bill following its passage.
“Idaho lawmakers continue pushing these harmful, invasive bathroom laws, yet cannot present credible evidence that transgender people using gender-aligned bathrooms threaten public safety,” the Idaho ACLU said. “The bill does nothing to address real criminal acts, such as sexual assault or voyeurism, and disregards concerns from law enforcement about the burden enforcement would place on local resources.”
In addition to human rights advocates, who have spoken out against similar bills advancing in state legislatures across the country, Idaho law enforcement groups have also opposed the measure. They argue that the way the legislation is written would “pose significant practical enforcement challenges,” noting that officers are tasked with maintaining public safety — not conducting gender checks or policing bathroom access.
During a committee hearing last week, law enforcement representatives and several trans Idahoans testified that the bill would make many residents less safe.
“Officers responding to a complaint would be placed in the difficult position of determining an individual’s biological sex in order to enforce the statute,” Idaho Fraternal Order of Police President Bryan Lovell wrote. “In many circumstances, there is no clear or reasonable way for officers to make that determination without engaging in questioning or investigative actions that could be viewed as invasive and inappropriate.”
The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association requested that lawmakers amend the bill to require that individuals be given an opportunity to leave a bathroom immediately before facing potential prosecution.
The bill now heads to the Idaho Senate for consideration. To become law, it must pass both chambers and avoid a veto from the governor.
A separate bathroom bill, House Bill 607, which would be enforced through civil lawsuits, passed the House last month but has not yet received a committee hearing in the Senate.
State Department
Report: US to withhold HIV aid to Zambia unless mineral access expanded
New York Times obtained Secretary of State Marco Rubio memo
The State Department is reportedly considering withholding assistance for Zambians with HIV unless the country’s government allows the U.S. to access more of its minerals.
The New York Times on Monday reported Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a memo to State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs staffers wrote the U.S. “will only secure our priorities by demonstrating willingness to publicly take support away from Zambia on a massive scale.” The newspaper said it obtained a copy of the letter.
Zambia is a country in southern Africa that borders Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The Times notes upwards of 1.3 million Zambians receive daily HIV medications through PEPFAR. The newspaper reported Rubio in his memo said the Trump-Vance administration could “significantly cut assistance” as soon as May.
“Reports of (the) State Department withholding lifesaving HIV treatment in return for mining concessions in Zambia does not make us safer, stronger, or more prosperous,” said U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Tuesday. “Monetizing innocent people’s lives further undermines U.S. global leadership and is just plain wrong.”
The Washington Blade has reached out to the State Department for comment.
Zambia received breakthrough HIV prevention drug through PEPFAR
Rubio on Jan. 28, 2025, issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.
The State Department last September announced PEPFAR will distribute lenacapavir in countries with high prevalence rates. Zambia two months later received the first doses of the breakthrough HIV prevention drug.
Kenya and Uganda are among the African countries have signed health agreements with the U.S. since the Trump-Vance administration took office.
The Times notes the countries that signed these agreements pledged to increase health spending. The Blade last month reported LGBTQ rights groups have questioned whether these agreements will lead to further exclusion and government-sanctioned discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Housewives take Capitol Hill by storm
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
‘It’s Dorothy’ traces lasting influence of a cultural icon
SAVE Act could silence millions of trans voters
The frightening rise of antisemitism, Islamophobia
Ensuring safer drinking water
A season of renewal for D.C. theater
PHOTOS: Awesome Con
Kennedy Center leadership changes as Trump ally Grenell departs
