Local
Referendum to end D.C. tipped wage system delayed by lawsuit
Move reignites controversy for city’s service workers

A D.C. bartender filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of Referendum 8.
A proposed voter referendum to overturn the D.C. City Council’s decision to repeal Initiative 77 that voters approved in June to end the city’s tipped wage system was placed on hold Monday when a D.C. bartender filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the referendum.
The lawsuit reignited the heated controversy from earlier this year that pitted the majority of the city’s tipped workers at bars and restaurants against a New York-based labor group that organized Initiative 77. The group ROC United said the initiative was needed because the tipped wage system resulted in lower wages for tipped workers and promoted sexual harassment against female tipped workers.
The tipped workers who opposed the initiative argued that the current system, in which they receive a lower wage from their employer but make overall substantially higher earnings through tips, works well for them and would be jeopardized if the tipped wage system were eliminated.
The bartender who filed the lawsuit on Monday, Valerie Graham, states in the lawsuit that the referendum’s summary statement, which had been approved by the D.C. Board of Elections on Nov. 9, includes what she says was the same misleading wording as that of Initiative 77.
The lawsuit was written by the law firm that represents the leading opponents of Initiative 77, of which Graham says she is a part. Among other things it says the proposed referendum’s summary statement would mislead voters by claiming Initiative 77 “gradually increases the minimum wage for tipped employees from the current wage ($3.89/hour), to the same minimum wage as non-tipped employees by 2026.”
The lawsuit points out that tipped workers already receive the equivalent of the full minimum wage that non-tipped workers receive because under existing D.C. law employers of tipped workers are required to pay the difference if their employees’ tips fall short of the full minimum wage.
Supporters of what the Board of Elections has named Referendum 8 denounced the lawsuit as yet another ploy to deny the will of the city’s voters who approved Initiative 77 by a 56 percent margin.
They note that the timing of the lawsuit places a temporary hold on the Board of Election’s release of petitions that supporters must circulate to collect approximately 25,000 signatures needed to place the referendum on the ballot.
Under the city’s election law signatures for a referendum seeking to overturn a law passed by the City Council must be obtained between the time the bill calling for the law is passed and the time it becomes law. The election board has interpreted that to be the 30 “legislative” days that Congress takes to review all laws passed by the city.
Congress is expected to complete its review of the Council’s bill to repeal Initiative 77 by Dec. 13. Thus, if supporters of Referendum 8 are unable to complete the signature gathering process by that date, the referendum would be killed.
The restaurant industry filed its lawsuit “at the eleventh hour,” a spokesperson for Referendum 8 said in a statement. “It’s their latest effort to thwart the democratic process. We will fight this delaying tactic in court, and we will prevail in the end,” said the spokesperson, Rev. Graylan Hagler, pastor of D.C.’s Plymouth United Church of Christ.
Maryland
Advocates for trans students urge Md. to fight White House threats
Four school districts under federal investigation
By JESSICA CALEFATI | Allies of transgender children are urging state education officials to fight back against the Trump-Vance administration, which has threatened to punish a growing number of Maryland school districts over local policies that affirm students’ gender identities.
The advocates testified Tuesday morning before the Maryland State Board of Education — one day after the U.S. Education and Justice departments alleged that Anne Arundel County’s school system violated federal student privacy law by withholding a student’s gender identity from their parents. A spokesperson for the district said Monday legal counsel had not yet reviewed the claims and that the district had no further comment.
School districts in Prince George’s, Montgomery, and Frederick Counties were already under investigation for allegedly violating Title IX, the civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination. The federal government last month threatened to revoke funding from the districts because they allow trans students to use restrooms and locker rooms that align with their identities.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Maryland
White House threatens Anne Arundel schools over gender identity policy
District faces possible legal action or loss of federal funding
By JESSICA CALEFATI | The Trump-Vance administration on Monday threatened to punish Anne Arundel County’s school system with legal action or the loss of federal funding for allegedly withholding information about a student’s gender identity and transition from the child’s parents.
The U.S. Education and Justice Departments together determined that the suburban Maryland district treats students’ gender identities as confidential medical information that cannot be shared with parents, in violation of federal student privacy law, according to a news release. A federal lawsuit filed against the district earlier this month made similar claims.
“As a mother and a grandmother, it is unconscionable that any school district would hide the most sensitive information about children in their care from their own parents,” U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement. “This is not only an affront to basic moral principles, but also to parents’ rights under federal law.”
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Virginia
Winsome Earle-Sears launches campaign against Va. marriage equality amendment
Former LG lost to Abigail Spanberger in 2025 gubernatorial race
Less than a year after losing Virginia’s gubernatorial race, former Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears is campaigning across the state against constitutional amendments that would protect marriage equality and reproductive freedom.
She is launching a statewide “Life and Marriage Tour” ahead of November’s election.
Although same-sex couples can legally marry under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, Virginia’s constitution still contains language that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Supporters say removing the language would protect marriage equality should federal precedent change.
The original ban was written into the state constitution in 2006.
It has been hinted at in the past by Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas that he would consider revisiting Obergefell v. Hodges regarding contraception and marriage rights for same-sex couples. He stated this in his concurring opinion regarding the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling, which allows for state-level abortion bans.
Equality Virginia Executive Director Narissa Rahaman said removing the ban would bring the state’s constitution in line with existing law.
“20 years after banning marriage equality, it’s time for our commonwealth to fully complete our evolution — and finish the job on protecting marriage equality for all,” Rahaman said.
In an email to supporters, Earle-Sears said these amendments “raise serious concerns” and could alter principles about which Virginians care.
“That is why our efforts are focused not only on informing voters, but also encouraging them to carefully consider these proposals and vote NO on both amendments,” Earle-Sears said.
Virginia voters will consider three constitutional amendments this November.
Earle-Sears is campaigning for voters to reject two of them: the Virginia Remove Constitutional Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment and the Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment.
A “Yes” vote on the Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment would include removing a provision that states marriage is between one man and one woman and prohibitng the state from denying a marriage license to two adults based on their sex, gender, or race, according to the Virginia Department of Elections.
In 2025, during debates against now Gov. Abigail Spanberger, Earle-Sears argued it is not discrimination to think that gay people should not be allowed to marry. She claims it conflicts with her faith.
According to ABC 8, in 2024 she wrote that she had a “moral opposition” to marriage equality, after former Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, signed a marriage equality bill that barred denying marriage licenses based on sex, gender, or race.
According to the Virginia Department of Elections, a “Yes” vote on the Reproductive Freedom amendment supports adding a section to the state constitution that would give Virginians the right to make and carry out decisions regarding reproductive healthcare, except in specific exemptions.
The Virginia Department of Elections wrote that if accepted, the amendment would allow the state government to pass laws to regulate abortion care in the third trimester of pregnancy, but require abortion care when it is medically needed to protect the life and health of the pregnant person or because the fetus is not viable.
During the 2025 election cycle, Earle-Sears was clear on her anti-abortion stance.
According to the Virginia Independent, she utilized campaign funds to donate to the Family Foundation of Virginia. The group is a faith-based, anti-abortion, and anti-in vitro fertilization non-profit.
The “Life and Marriage Tour” will include traveling throughout Virginia to speak with citizens, churches, community organizations, and local leaders. The exact locations have yet to be announced.
-
Opinions4 days agoPentagon says hormones make trans troops unfit but gives them to men
-
National5 days agoAt Alliance Defending Freedom’s summit, church and state are one
-
Virginia4 days agoWinsome Earle-Sears launches campaign against Va. marriage equality amendment
-
Calendar4 days agoCalendar: July 24-30
