GLAA D.C., formerly known as the Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, announced on May 13 that it has awarded its highest ratings for D.C. Council candidates running in the city’s June 4 primary election to incumbent Council members Janeese Lewis George (D-Ward 4) and Robert White (D-At-Large) and to Ward 7 Democratic candidate Nate Fleming.

On a rating scale of +10, the highest possible rating, to -10, the lowest rating, GLAA awarded ratings of +9.5 to Lewis George, + 9 to Robert White, and +8.5 to Fleming.

Fleming is one of 10 candidates running in the Democratic primary for the Ward 7 Council seat, which is being vacated by incumbent Council member and former D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray, who is not running for re-election. In addition to Fleming, GLAA issued ratings for seven other Ward 7 Democratic contenders who, like Fleming, returned a required GLAA candidate questionnaire.

The remaining two Ward 7 candidates were not rated under a GLAA policy adopted this year of not rating candidates that did not return the questionnaire, the responses to which GLAA uses to determine its ratings, according to GLAA President Tyrone Hanley. A statement accompanying the GLAA ratings shows that it rated 13 D.C. Council candidates – all Democrats —  out of a total of 18 Council candidates on the June 4 primary ballot.

Ballot information released by the D.C. Board of Elections shows that only one Republican candidate and one Statehood Green Party candidate is running this year for a  D.C. Council seat.  GOP activist Nate Derenge is running for the Ward 8 seat held by incumbent Democrat Trayon White and Statehood Green Party candidate Darryl Moch is running for the At-Large Council seat held by Robert White.

GLAA shows in its ratings statement that neither Trayon White nor Derenge nor Moch returned the questionnaire, preventing them from being rated. However, one of two Democratic candidates running against Tryon White in the primary — Salim Aldofo — did return the questionnaire and received a rating of +5.5. The other Democratic candidate, Rahman Branch, did not return the questionnaire and was not rated. Trayon White has been a supporter on LGBTQ issues while serving on the Council.

GLAA President Hanley said GLAA this year decided to limit its ratings to candidates of all political parties running for D.C. Council seats. In addition to candidates running for an At-Large Council seat and Council seats in Wards 4, 7, and 8, the June 4 primary ballot includes candidates running for the D.C. Congressional Delegate seat, the Shadow U.S. House seat, and the Shadow U.S. Senate seat. GLAA chose not to issue ratings for those races, according to Hanley. He said during mayoral election years, GLAA rates all candidates for mayor.

The Capital Stonewall Democrats, D.C’s largest local LGBTQ political organization,  was scheduled to release its endorsements of D.C. Council candidates and candidates for all other local D.C. races, including Congressional Delegate and Senate and House “shadow” races, at a May 21 endorsement event. The Blade will report on those endorsements in an upcoming story.

Like in all past years beginning in the early 1970s when GLAA began rating candidates in local D.C elections, the group has not rated federal candidates, including those running for U.S. president. Thus, it issued no rating this year for President Joe Biden and two lesser-known Democratic challengers appearing on the D.C. presidential primary ballot on June 4 – Marianne Williamson and Armando Perez-Serrato.

In the At-Large Council race, GLAA gave Robert White’s sole Democratic challenger, Rodney Red Grant, who returned the questionnaire, a rating of +3.5.

“The ratings are based solely on the issues and may not be interpreted as endorsements,” GLAA says in its statement accompanying the rates. The statement says the ratings are based on the candidates’ response to the questionnaire, the questions for which GLAA says reflect the group’s positions on a wide range of issues as stated in a document it calls “A Loving Community: GLAA Policy Brief 2024.” It sends a link to that document to all candidates to whom it sends them the questionnaire and urges the candidate to seek out the brief “for guidance and clarification” in responding to the questions. GLAA says the ratings are also based on the candidates’ record on the issues GLAA deems of importance, including LGBTQ issues.

Like its questionnaire in recent years, this year’s nine-question questionnaire asks the candidates whether they would support mostly non-LGBTQ specific issues supported by GLAA, some of which are controversial. One of the questions asks the candidates, “Do you support enacting legislation to decriminalize sex work for adults, including the selling and purchasing of sex and third-party involvement not involving fraud, violence, and coercion?”

Another question asks if the candidates would support decriminalizing illegal drug use by supporting “removing the criminal penalties for drug possession for personal use and increasing investments in health services.” Other questions ask whether candidates would address “concentrated wealth in the District by raising revenue through taxing the most wealthy residents,” would they support funding for “harm reduction and overdose prevention services to save lives,” and would they support a Green New Deal for Housing bill pending before the D.C. Council that would “Socialize Our Housing” to address putting in place city subsidized housing for those in need.

One of the questions that might be considered LGBTQ specific asks whether candidates would support sufficient funding for the D.C. Office of Human Rights to ensure the office has enough staff members to adequately enforce the city’s nondiscrimination laws and to end a discrimination case backlog that the office sometimes encounters.

Some activists have criticized GLAA for not including more LGBTQ-specific questions in its questionnaire. Others have defended the questionnaire on grounds that D.C. long ago has passed a full range of LGBTQ supportive laws and most if not, all serious candidates running in D.C. for public office for the past 20 years or more have expressed strong support for LGBTQ equality. They argue that LGBTQ voters, while weighing the depth of support candidates have on LGBTQ issues, most of the time base their vote on a candidate’s record and position on non-LGBTQ issues when all candidates in a specific race are LGBTQ supportive.

Hanley told the Washington Blade GLAA believes the current questionnaire addresses the issues of importance to the largest number of LGBTQ D.C. residents.

“My response is that we care about whatever issues are impacting queer and trans people,” Hanley said. “We can’t isolate the challenges we are experiencing as queer and trans people to things that are specifically related to our identity as queer and trans people because they are all interconnected,” he said.

“So, how will I tell a Black trans woman we care about her not being discriminated against at her job for being trans, for being Black, or for being a woman, but we don’t care that she doesn’t have housing? Hanley asked. “To me, that seems like a very inhumane way of thinking about human beings because we are whole human beings,” he said, some of whom, he added, face a wide range of issues such as homelessness,  drug issues, and “struggling to make ends meet.”

The GLAA statement that accompanies its ratings, which is posted on its website, includes links to each of the candidates’ questionnaire responses as well as an explanation of why it gave its specific rating to each of the candidates. In its explanation section GLAA says all the candidates expressed overall support for the LGBTQ community and expressed support for the concerns  related to the issues raised by the questions even if they were not at this time ready to back some of the issues like decriminalization of sex work.  

Following are the GLAA ratings given to 12 Democratic D.C. Council candidates and one “unknown” candidate that Hanley says submitted their questionnaire but did not reveal their identity on the questionnaire:

DC Council At-Large

Robert White: +9

Rodney Red Grant: +3.5

DC Council Ward 4

Janeese Lewis George: +9.5

DC Council Ward 7

Ebony-Rose Thompson: +4.5

Ebony Payne: +5

Kelvin Brown: +2.5

Nate Fleming: +8.5

Roscoe Grant Jr.: +3.5

Veda Rasheed: +5

Villareal VJ Johnson II: +4

Wendell Felder: +2

DC Council Ward 8

Salim Aldofo: +5.5

Unknown: +2

The full GLAA ratings, a breakdown of the ratings based on a GLAA rating criteria, the candidate questionnaire response, and GLAA’s explanation for each of its candidate ratings can be accessed at the GLAA website.

In a little-noticed development, D.C. Council member Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2) introduced a bill in September 2023 calling for creating a special committee within the D.C. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner to determine and study trends related to the cause of death of transgender and “gender diverse” people in the District of Columbia.

The bill is called the Transgender and Gender Diverse Mortality and Fatality Review Committee Establishment Act. Among other things, it mandates that the medical examiner’s office through the newly created committee “identify and characterize the scope and nature of transgender and gender-diverse mortalities and fatalities, to describe  and record any trends, data, or patterns that are observed surrounding transgender and gender-diverse mortalities and fatalities.” 

In a development that some observers say caught Pinto off guard, officials with two prominent D.C. LGBTQ supportive organizations – the Whitman Walker Institute and the LGBTQ youth advocacy group SMYAL – expressed strong opposition to the bill in testimony submitted in April as a follow-up to a Council hearing on the bill conducted by Pinto on March 21.

Among other things, the officials – Benjamin Brooks, Whitman-Walker Institute’s Associate Director of Policy and Education; and Erin Whelan, SMYAL’s executive director, said the committee to be created by the bill to identify trans people who die would be an invasion of their and their families’ privacy. The two said the funds needed to pay for identifying whether someone who dies is transgender should be used instead for other endeavors, including supporting trans people in need, and protecting their rights.

The hearing record for the Council’s Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety, which Pinto chairs and which conducted the hearing, shows that Brooks and Whelan were among four witnesses that testified against the bill. Six witnesses, including officials with the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and Medical Society of the District of Columbia, testified in support of the bill.

Also testifying in support of the bill with suggested revisions was Vincent Slatt, who serves as chair of the D.C. Advisory Neighborhood Commission Rainbow Caucus.

Jenna Beebe-Aryee, Supervisory Fatality Review Program Manager for the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, testified that the bill would be “remarkably challenging” for that office and its partnering city agencies to carry out, including what she said would be a difficult process of identifying whether someone who has died is transgender or gender diverse. But she did not state that her office and the Office of the Mayor outright oppose the bill.

The bill has remained in Pinto’s committee since the time of the hearing, with no indication from Pinto of what her plans are for going forward with the bill, including whether she plans to make revisions and if or when she may plan to bring the bill to the full Council for a vote. 

Victoria Casarrubias, Pinto’s communications director, told the Blade last week that Pinto’s office had no immediate comment on Pinto’s plans for the bill.

The 17-page bill, according to its introductory summary page, would also “create a strategic framework for improving transgender and gender-diverse health outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities in the District,” and to “recommend training to improve the identification, investigation, and prevention of transgender and gender-diverse fatalities, and to make publicly available an annual report of its findings, recommendations, and steps taken to evaluate implementation of past recommendations.”

The bill authorizes the D.C. mayor to appoint the members of the newly created medical examiner’s committee and requires that members include representatives of six D.C. government agencies, including the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner; the departments of Health; Behavioral Health; Health Care Finance; Human Services; and the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs.

It calls on the Office of LGBTQ Affairs to provide support to other city agencies in developing procedures for identifying transgender people who the agencies have provided services for and who have died.

It also requires the mayor to name as committee members representatives of organizations providing health care and services for the transgender community as well as a social worker specializing in transgender related issues and a college or university representative “conducting research in transgender and gender-diverse mortality trends or fatality prevention.”  

Seven other members of the 13-member D.C. Council signed on as co-introducers of the bill. They include Council members Robert White (D-At-Large), Anita Bonds (D-At-Large), Christina Henderson (I-At Large), Matthew Frumin (D-Ward 3), Janese Lewis George (D-Ward 4),  Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), and Vincent Gray (D-Ward 7).

Spokespersons for Gray and Bonds told the Blade the two Council members continue to support the bill and would consider any revisions that those who have expressed concern about the bill might suggest.

“The establishment of this committee will continue the District’s leading role in LGBTQIA+ advocacy and legislation,” Pinto states in a letter accompanying her introduction of the bill. “The Committee will be the first entity of its kind in the United States,” according to her letter.

 Pinto cites in her letter studies and national data showing that deaths of trans people are disproportionately higher due to a variety of causes, including illness compared to cisgender people in the United States. “Trans women in particular are disproportionately vulnerable to the aforementioned risks, as well as to violence and murder, with one in four trans women likely to be victimized by a hate-related crime,” Pinto said in her letter.

 “Although data are limited, some studies suggest that transgender people are ‘twice as likely to die as cisgender people’ due to ‘heart disease, lung cancer, HIV-related illness and suicide,’ with trans women being ‘two times as likely to die compared to cis men and ‘three times as likely’ compared to cis women,” Pinto states in her letter.

In their testimony against the bill, Brooks of Whitman Walker and Whalen of SMYAL said the problems they believe the bill will bring about outweigh the benefits that Pinto says it will provide for the trans community.

“It is improper for the District government to be investigating and determining someone’s gender identity,” Brooks said in his testimony. “This would require District agencies to coordinate investigations into deeply personal characteristics of many people,” he said. “This invasion of privacy is a poor use of the government’s time and energy.” 

Brooks stated that the city has existing policies and requirements designed to find ways to improve the lives of transgender and gender diverse residents. He pointed to the LGBTQ Health Data Collection Amendment Act of 2018, which requires the Department of Health to produce a comprehensive report on the health and health disparities faced by the D.C. LGBTQ community. According to Brooks, the Department of Health has not released such a report since 2017.

“We strongly recommend that rather than proposing to spend precious time and scarce resources on a novel and invasive committee, the District should put those resources towards fulfilling existing data collection and reporting obligations,” Brooks states in his testimony. 

Whelan of SMYAL expressed similar concerns in her testimony. “Transgender and Gender-Diverse (TGD) people do not need yet another violation of their privacy and exposure to more questions and interrogation for them to provide the reasons for the incredible amount of violence and loss the transgender and gender-diverse community faces,” Whelen says in her testimony. 

“What we do need are solutions on how to address the underlying causes of anti-transgender violence, in addition to the barriers that prevent transgender and gender-diverse communities from accessing and maintaining safe and stable housing, and accessing affirming mental health resources,” Whelan adds in her testimony. “What we as a community need is diligent action in a positive direction to actually address the lack of resources, services, and violence towards this community.”

Supporters of the bill might point out that it includes strongly worded language calling for keeping personal information about transgender and gender-diverse people who die confidential and calls for criminal penalties for anyone who violates the confidentiality provision by disclosing the information, including whether a deceased person identified as transgender.

Brooks said strong grounds exist for not enacting the bill despite its privacy provision.

 “The collection of sensitive information, particularly for decedents who cannot advocate for their own right to privacy, always raises the potential for inappropriate disclosure regardless of potential penalties,” he said. “The threat of criminal prosecution can be a deterrent to the intentional inappropriate sharing of private information; however, it may not stop accidental or inadvertent disclosure,” he said.

Slatt’s testimony calls for six specific suggested revisions in the bill pertaining to ways the newly created medical examiner committee would obtain information about trans people who die, including the suggestion that the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs become involved in identifying trans people who pass away and be given one or more additional staff members to help support its increased responsibilities under the legislation.

 “Members of the ANC Rainbow Caucus have discussed this proposed bill and find that it is a remarkable and historic step towards addressing trans and gender-diverse mortalities and fatalities,” Slatt says in his testimony. 

“At a time when trans and gender-diverse people are under attack by municipalities across the nation, the District of Columbia is setting an example on how to create not just a culture of inclusion, but also a culture of belonging for trans residents,” he stated.

The Capital Pride Alliance, the group that organizes D.C.’s annual LGBTQ Pride events, announced this week the lineup of performers for the Sunday, June 9, Capital Pride Concert to be held during the Capital Pride Festival on Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. near the U.S. Capitol.

Among the performers will be nationally acclaimed singers and recording artists Billy Porter and Keke Palmer, who will also serve as grand marshals for the Capital Pride Parade set to take place one day earlier on Saturday, June 8. 

The Capital Price announcement says the other lead performers will be Ava Max, Sapphira Cristal, and the pop female trio Exposé.

“The beloved pop icons will captivate audiences with upbeat performances coupled with their fierce advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights, echoing the vibrant spirit of this year’s theme, ‘Totally Radical,’” according to a statement released by Capital Pride Alliance.

“With Billy Porter and Keke Palmer leading the parade as Grand Marshals, we’re not only honoring their incredible contributions to the LGBTQ+ community but also amplifying their voices as fierce advocates for equality and acceptance,” Capital Pride Alliance Executive Director Ryan Bos said in the statement.

“The concert and festival serve as a platform to showcase the diverse array of LGBTQ+ talent, from the chart-topping hits of Ava Max to the iconic sounds of Exposé and the electrifying performances of Sapphira Cristal,” Bos said in the statement. “Capital Pride 2024 promises to be a celebration like no other.”  

The concert will take place from 12-10 p.m. on the main stage and other stages across the four-block long festival site on Pennsylvania Avenue.