Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

Non-discrimination ballot referendum coming

I’ve been waiting for this.

they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

Activists are preparing a petition to put a referendum on Houston’s November ballot, calling for a ban on discrimination against gays and permission for the city to grant health insurance benefits to the unmarried partners of city employees.

If organizers collect the 20,000 signatures needed to get it on the ballot, the measure again would take the temperature of Houstonians who have voted against both proposals in separate measures in the past 27 years and could make Houston the focus of national attention as the latest political battleground over gay rights.

“Discrimination exists everywhere. It’s really hard to determine how big the problem is,” said Noel Freeman, president of the Houston GLBT Caucus, who said he expects to submit petition language to the city secretary as early as the end of the month. A local law is necessary, Freeman said, because gays and lesbians who want to press claims of discrimination currently must undertake costly litigation in state or federal courts.

Houston voters rejected two initiatives in 1985 that would have banned discrimination against gays and lesbians in city employment. In 1998, Mayor Lee Brown issued an order banning discrimination against gay city employees. It survived a three-year legal challenge from Councilman Rob Todd.

[…]

Todd supports Freeman’s referendum.

“I believe that everyone has a right to be loved,” said Todd, a Republican. “And everyone has a right to gainful employment and to be able to support their loved ones, and if those aren’t bipartisan values, then I don’t know what is.”

The former councilman explained that his objection to Brown’s order was parliamentary – that such a change should come from the voters or Council, “not some wave of the wand by the executive branch.” Todd said he believes this referendum has a chance of passing where others have failed because of a new generation of voters, an influx of newcomers and changed attitudes among long-time Houstonians.

I got a similar response from former Council Member Todd when I asked him about it after the city of San Antonio extended domestic partnership benefits to city employees. I too believe that a referendum like this – we don’t have the exact wording yet – should have a better chance of passing than previous ones had. The 2001 charter amendment that denied domestic partner benefits in Houston received 51.52% of the vote, not an overwhelming mandate. It won’t be an easy fight, and a lot will depend on how the issue is framed and who lines up with whom, but it’s a fight worth having and a fight that needs to be won. I’m looking forward to it.

Related Posts:

5 Comments

  1. Bill Shirley says:

    It will be interesting to see if the measure pushes more YES or more NO voters who usually don’t show to the ballot booths.

  2. In a Presidential election year, I expect that effect to be very minimal. The vast majority of voters this year will be there regardless of whether something like that is on the ballot or not. In an odd-numbered year, it would have been substantial – just look at the turnout level in 2005, the year the anti-gay-marriage Constitutional amendment was on the ballot. As we saw when I looked at elections from the 90s, almost any ballot proposition helps drive turnout in odd-year elections.

  3. Jay Aiyer says:

    Kudos to the caucus for moving on this issue. I’m glad Rob Todd favors this now, but he is being a bit disingenuous when he states his opposition in 98 was exclusively parliamentary. It was entirely political. I was Chief of Staff to Mayor Brown at that time, and I can tell you that Rob was a vocal critic of most things the Mayor advocated–from after school programs, light rail, and of course the anti-discrimination executive order. He even opposed things he often agreed with to placate more conservative political allies. I’m glad he has changed his position, but to say his view hasn’t evolved is just not right.

  4. Ross says:

    I hope there’s a provision that requires some sort of proof of commitment in these relationships before we squander taxpayer money on benefits for a City employee’s squeeze of the week.

  5. […] that awful 2001 charter amendment, and for the most part the responses are positive. There had been some talk about putting a referendum over this on the ballot in 2012, but it never materialized. Because […]

Bookmark and Share