The state legislature is poised to override a veto from Democratic Governor Laura Kelly, highlighting political tensions and democratic principles.
The Kansas legislature’s Republican members are on the brink of turning their state into the 25th to prohibit medical care for transgender youth by proceeding with an override vote. Despite Governor Laura Kelly (D) anticipated veto, the Republican party commands supermajorities in both the Kansas House and Senate.
“Today, the Senate demonstrated a steadfast commitment to safeguarding children by emphasizing that extreme transgender ideology and the medical alteration of minors are neither lawful nor embraced in Kansas,” remarked State Senate President Ty Masterson (R) subsequent to Wednesday’s vote, which forwarded Senate Bill 233 to the governor for consideration.
Governor Kelly has affirmed her intention to veto the bill.
If approved, the legislation will prohibit transgender individuals under 18 from accessing crucial medical treatments, such as gender-affirming surgeries and puberty blockers. While gender-affirming surgery is rarely performed on minors, puberty blockers, which delay the onset of puberty, offer transgender youth and their families valuable time for self-discovery before irreversible changes occur. Studies have shown that puberty blockers can significantly decrease the lifelong risk of suicide among transgender individuals.
With the anticipated override, Kansas is set to become the third state this year to outlaw gender-affirming care for minors, joining four other states where similar laws are currently entangled in legal proceedings.
Senate Minority Leader Dinah Sykes (D) appealed to Republicans to demonstrate compassion and empathy by voting against the bill. She emphasized the distress of families with transgender children, expressing concern that the legislation would exacerbate their fears and anxieties.
Sykes addressed Kansans directly, assuring them that some lawmakers empathize with their plight and understand the importance of receiving necessary care to live authentically. She underscored the detrimental impact the law would have on transgender individuals and their families if enacted.
In the previous year, Governor Kelly vetoed a comparable bill alongside another proposal aimed at restricting transgender women and girls from participating in female school sports. However, moderate GOP members refrained from supporting overrides initiated by their far-right counterparts.
This time, the votes in favor of advancing Senate Bill 233 suggest that the Republican supermajorities in both the state House and Senate will succeed in passing the anti-trans legislation.
Like in other conservative-leaning states that have banned gender-affirming care for minors, opponents of the law are expected to challenge it in court. Legal outcomes have been mixed thus far, with federal appeals courts divided on the constitutionality of such bans. Ultimately, the Supreme Court, which currently leans conservative with a 6-3 majority, may ultimately decide on the matter.
Authorities have taken three teenagers into custody in connection with the death of Franco.
This is a developing story. It contains descriptions of violence against a trans person.
According to the local CBS affiliate 2KUTV, the lifeless body of Alex Franco, a 21-year-old transgender man, was discovered on Tuesday morning in a secluded area of Utah, succumbing to a gunshot wound.
Reports suggest that Franco was abducted on Sunday afternoon. His girlfriend, Alyssa Henry, last saw him outside her Taylorsville residence, situated in the Salt Lake City metropolitan vicinity. Henry recounted to 2KUTV that Franco was conversing inside a white Jeep with acquaintances of theirs, purportedly arranged to provide transportation to the park for the couple. However, a gunshot emanated from within the vehicle, which swiftly departed. Authorities located Franco’s remains on Tuesday, bearing a lone gunshot injury, in a remote desert sector of Utah County, as detailed by the Taylorsville Police Department.
Subsequently, two teenage boys, aged 17 and 15, were apprehended in connection to the incident and presented in court on Wednesday. Another 17-year-old was detained early Thursday morning, as reported by local news outlet Fox 13. According to court statements cited by the station, the trio purportedly engaged in a dispute with Franco while attempting to sell him a firearm; Taylorsville Police disclosed that the teenagers had intended to rob Franco of the money allocated for the purchase of the weapon.
Law enforcement officials informed the news outlet that the three youths have been incarcerated at the Salt Lake Valley Detention Center, facing multiple felony charges. Their next court appearance is scheduled for March 27.
In a vigil held on Tuesday night, Franco’s loved ones congregated to honor his memory. Chloe Goold, a close friend, characterized him as someone who “illuminated every room he entered,” according to 2KUTV. Vinnie Franco, Alex’s grandfather, took to Facebook on Tuesday to pay tribute to his grandson, recalling how Alex had cared for him during times of incapacity and expressing joy for Alex’s journey of self-realization as a transgender individual.
To cover the funeral expenses of Franco, his family initiated a crowdfunding campaign, with any surplus funds allocated toward aiding the mental health recovery of grieving siblings.
Alejandra Caraballo alleges that X is shielding right-wing extremists while stifling the voices of transgender individuals.
Alejandra Caraballo, a transgender attorney and clinical instructor at Harvard Law School’s Cyberlaw Clinic, appears to have received a permanent ban from X (formerly Twitter) for disseminating information regarding the alleged identity of a neo-Nazi figure, sparking questions about the platform’s content moderation policies under Elon Musk’s ownership. This development has reignited debates concerning free speech, hate speech, and the handling of far-right ideologies on the platform.
Caraballo’s permanent suspension was confirmed on Tuesday morning. Earlier, she had faced a temporary suspension after modifying her profile name to include that of a notorious right-wing extremist known for creating content steeped in racism and anti-Semitic themes.
The extremist in question, known for producing comic illustrations under the alias StoneToss, was purportedly revealed to be a 34-year-old former security guard and IT worker from Texas named Hans Kristian Graebener by a group of activists, the Anonymous Comrades Collective and Late-Night Anti-Fascists, as reported by Wired on March 12. Critics point out that StoneToss’s content frequently contains elements of anti-Semitism, transphobia, racism, homophobia, and other forms of bigotry. Following the online posting of the individual’s name and photo by the activist group, some X users reported instances of suspension.
Journalist Steven Monacelli remarked on the atypical enforcement actions taken against Caraballo, observing, “Alejandra Caraballo’s account has been restricted, and her display name altered to remove reference to the neo-Nazi cartoonist Stone Toss. This level of enforcement is unprecedented in my experience. It appears Musk is going to great lengths to shield Stone Toss.”
Monacelli added, “Alejandra Caraballo has been suspended, rendering her account inaccessible, all due to sharing the name of the racist and antisemitic cartoonist Stone Toss.”
Another user on X criticized the platform’s decision, stating, “Alejandra Caraballo @Esqueer_ has been suspended yet again, this time indefinitely, simply for discussing publicly available information regarding a Nazi. X’s actions are becoming increasingly authoritarian. Freedom of speech seems conditional on Elon’s approval.” This sentiment underscores mounting concerns about the direction of X under Musk’s leadership, particularly regarding content moderation and political discourse.
Caraballo expressed to The Advocate, “Elon is personally instructing Twitter to shield StoneToss. The excessive measures suggest a haphazard and reactive approach.”
X’s policy regarding private information explicitly acknowledges that mentioning someone’s name is considered publicly available information and does not breach its guidelines. The measures taken against Caraballo have raised questions about the consistency and impartiality of X’s policy enforcement, especially concerning politically sensitive content.
Caraballo condemned Twitter’s explicit protection of neo-Nazis as morally reprehensible, highlighting how “the individual responsible for the neo-Nazi StoneToss comics directly appealed to his followers, who had a direct line to Elon. They heeded the call, prompting Twitter to crack down on anyone mentioning the name.”
Following the alleged identification of the creator on social media, StoneToss utilized X to rally his followers and address Musk directly, expressing opposition to what he perceived as attempts to silence him and others on the platform. He asserted, “One of you has a direct line to @elonmusk – and you need to use it,” adding, “This is not only about myself but also about others I know personally. There exists a whole community of artists who cannot create art anymore due to Twitter users organizing to punish them in real life for doing so.” He proposed that minor policy adjustments could alleviate the situation for far-right creators who have been driven away from other platforms.
Caraballo posted a screenshot of a violation notice indicating her account suspension for allegedly violating X’s rules on abusive behavior following a user report. According to the notice, modifying one’s profile name in a manner deemed as targeted harassment by the company constitutes a violation of the rules.
“I’m not surprised by their actions,” Caraballo remarked. “They seize any excuse to ban individuals Elon dislikes, particularly targeting trans people,” she added. “Andy Ngo has been actively seeking my suspension, and Elon now follows him.”
Previously, Musk had made derogatory remarks about Caraballo, referring to her as “crazy” in response to a post by Chaya Raichik, the creator of the anti-LGBTQ+ hate account Libs of TikTok.
Caraballo’s suspension coincides with broader discussions about X’s policies under Musk’s ownership, particularly regarding the treatment of LGBTQ+ users and the platform’s stance on hate speech. Caraballo had been outspoken in criticizing X’s management of far-right content and policy adjustments that she argued were detrimental to the transgender community.
In early March, X faced significant backlash for reversing its policy on anti-trans hate speech, which aimed to reduce the visibility of posts misgendering or deadnaming users upon report by the affected individual. The policy reversal, influenced by complaints from right-wing users and influencers, underscored the platform’s inconsistent commitment to safeguarding LGBTQ+ users from harassment. Critics, including advocacy groups and individual users, denounced the change, highlighting broader concerns about X’s policies under Musk’s leadership.
According to GLAAD’s Social Media Safety Index, X ranks as the worst platform for LGBTQ+ user safety.
The Advocate sought insight from the individual known as StoneToss but received no response. When asked for comment regarding Caraballo’s suspension, X replied, “Busy now, please check back later.”
However, late Tuesday night, Musk claimed he was unaware of the reasons behind Caraballo’s suspension in response to a post from Libs of TikTok.
“I’m uncertain why this account was suspended, but under our new policy, permanent suspensions are exceedingly rare and would necessitate numerous repeated infractions (unless blatantly a spam/scam account),” he stated.
Four hours later, Musk responded to another tweet from Libs of TikTok, stating, “The team has informed me that there were multiple instances of doxxing violations by this account, despite repeated warnings. The suspension is only for a few days initially, but the duration will increase with each subsequent violation.”
Caraballo expressed that her suspension hampers her efforts to bring national attention to overlooked stories and coverage of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, but she affirmed her commitment to continue her work.
“I still have other platforms, so I’ll persevere regardless. Twitter’s relevance has dwindled significantly as it has devolved into a hub of hate and spam bots,” Caraballo remarked.
The two are also accused of stealing tens of thousands of dollars and buying a car with the man’s credit card.
Two individuals accused of fatally poisoning and stabbing a retired university professor in Washington State, whom they initially encountered on the gay dating and hookup app Scruff, have been apprehended by the police.
Philip Brewer, aged 32, and Christina Hardy, aged 47, were arrested in California on Thursday in connection to the robbery and murder of Curtis Engeland, aged 74, from Mercer Island, Wash. Engeland was reported missing by his family on February 24, and his body was discovered on March 7 near Cosmopolis, Wash.
Brewer and Hardy face charges of first-degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, first-degree theft, and identity theft.
According to court documents obtained by various media outlets, including the Daily Mail, the duo allegedly devised a plan to eliminate the victim and take over his residence, while also seizing control of his financial assets and indulging in lavish purchases shortly after his demise.
According to court documents, Brewer and Engeland initially connected on Scruff in January and arranged their first date at a Starbucks during the same month. Later, the pair had another date at Engeland’s residence on Mercer Island to watch a movie, during which Engeland fell asleep. Upon awakening, he discovered Brewer missing along with his cell phone, car keys, safe deposit box keys, credit cards, and money. Engeland promptly contacted the authorities to report the thefts.
Over the ensuing weeks, court records indicate that tens of thousands of dollars were drained from Engeland’s accounts. Notably, it’s alleged that one significant expense was the acquisition of a $25,000 car using Engeland’s credit card.
Police suspect that Brewer and Hardy confronted Engeland at his home on February 23, administering a fatal dose of fentanyl via injection, stabbing him in the neck, and then disposing of his body in Cosmopolis. Following the crime, the duo purportedly took up residence in Engeland’s home and deliberately sent misleading text messages to themselves in order to confuse law enforcement. These messages were also sent to Engeland’s acquaintances, indicating that he would be absent for “the next three to six weeks” and that part of his house was being rented out to someone named “Christina” during his absence.
One of Engeland’s friends, who was romantically involved with him and planning to move in, received a text message at 3 a.m. the following day. He informed investigators that he found the timing and content of the text “suspicious,” as stated in court documents. This prompted him to report Engeland missing and mention that Brewer and Hardy were now residing in his home.
Upon police arrival at the residence, Brewer, Hardy, and her son were found present. They informed the authorities that Engeland had left but had granted them permission to utilize his residence and vehicle during his absence. As Engeland’s siblings arrived during the interview, they too expressed concern over the texts they had received, highlighting that their brother, a retired English professor, consistently communicated in grammatically correct sentences. At the insistence of the siblings, Brewer, Hardy, and her son vacated the premises, prompting an immediate commencement of the police investigation.
Shortly afterward, Engeland’s vehicle was discovered in a supermarket parking lot, with a bloodstained box found in the truck bed.
A significant breakthrough occurred the following Thursday when a man was apprehended for speeding by the California Highway Patrol near the desert town of Blythe on the Arizona border. The individual claimed to be in a relationship with Hardy’s daughter and asserted that he was fleeing from Brewer and Hardy, who were residing with him. He alleged that the pair had confessed to poisoning and stabbing Engeland, then disposing of the body. Police were informed by the fleeing individual that Brewer and Hardy intended to abduct Hardy’s daughter to return her to Washington, as they anticipated incarceration and wished for her to care for Hardy’s other children.
Brewer and Hardy were apprehended on the same day in California and are scheduled for extradition to Washington to face trial.
Mercer Island Police Chief Ed Holmes expressed condolences to Engeland’s family, stating, “First and foremost, we must acknowledge Mr. Engeland’s family – when this incident was first reported to police as a missing person, we hoped for a better outcome. The family remained determined to help our investigation over the past few weeks, and we hope some comfort can be found through the hard work being done to bring justice for Curtis and his loved ones.”
Laurie Goeken, Engeland’s neighbor for more than a decade, revealed to radio station KIRO that Engeland had been living alone since his husband passed away several years prior.
“He was not just a neighbor but also a cherished friend, a truly remarkable individual,” Goeken expressed to KIRO. “Engeland had a passion for gardening and hiking, embodying a truly special spirit.”
Goeken emphasized the collective concern among those who knew Engeland regarding his sudden disappearance.
“The disappearance of Engeland raised immediate suspicion among us,” Goeken remarked. “It was highly out of character for him. He held a deep affection for his cats, whom he adored. Whenever he was away, we would care for his cats, and he would reciprocate. Leaving them unattended was something he would never do.”
The Attorney General’s office of the state has stated that the child was taken out of custody due to the development of a severe eating disorder, stemming from their parents’ refusal to acknowledge the child’s transgender identity.
On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to review the appeal of two Indiana parents who lost custody of their transgender child in 2021. The parents, who hold the belief that children should be raised according to their assigned sex at birth, had their case dating back to 2019. Mary and Jeremy Cox from Anderson, Indiana, revealed that their then 14-year-old child identified as a trans girl. Despite being devout Christians, the Coxes refused to acknowledge their child’s identity, leading to prolonged conflict. Attorneys for the Department of Child Services (DCS) stated that this conflict ultimately resulted in the child developing a severe eating disorder, leading to both parents losing custody in 2021.
In 2022, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the decision by the Department of Child Services (DCS) to remove a child from her parents’ care. The court found that her eating disorder stemmed directly from emotional distress and lack of support at home. According to the ruling, Mary Cox made comments to her child such as “[child’s preferred name] is the bitch that killed my son.” The court concluded that a custody order was necessary to safeguard the child’s physical and emotional well-being, emphasizing that while the Coxes are entitled to their religious beliefs, they cannot exercise them in a manner that harms their child.
On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Coxes’ petition, affirming the 2022 Court of Appeals decision. The Court provided no explanation for its rejection. Attempts to obtain comment from the Indiana Attorney General’s office were unsuccessful prior to publication.
Recent studies suggest that rates of disordered eating are elevated among transgender individuals compared to cisgender people, particularly affecting trans youth aged 18-22. As noted by essayist Aerin Cho in a 2021 piece for Them, eating disorders can serve as a means of exerting control over one’s body, especially for young trans individuals facing parental reinforcement of shame and negative body image. Research also indicates a correlation between parental shaming and abuse and increased rates of eating disorders, irrespective of transgender identity.
The Coxes faced another setback in court following the failure of a bill they supported, which was grounded in arguments for parental religious freedom. The bill, HB 1407, championed by the couple, did not advance through the state legislature last year and was shelved in committee in 2023. HB 1407 aimed to affirm Indiana parents’ authority to oversee the upbringing, education, healthcare, and mental health of their children without interference from the government.
The Supreme Court’s decision coincides with the beginning of LGBTQ Health Awareness Week, organized annually by the National Coalition for LGBTQ Health. This year, the event spans from March 18 to 22. Additionally, on Monday, the Court rejected the appeal of Couy Griffin, co-founder of the right-wing activist group “Cowboys for Trump,” who was ousted from public office in New Mexico after his involvement in the failed coup attempt on January 6, 2021.
Ordained individuals are not obligated by law to officiate marriages that conflict with their beliefs. However, initially, there was no law mandating their involvement in such ceremonies.
Governor Bill Lee of Tennessee (R) has approved a bill affirming that individuals cannot be compelled to officiate a marriage if it conflicts with their conscience or religious convictions.
H.B. 878 specifically addresses “solemnization,” referring to the act of conducting a wedding ceremony. Under Tennessee law, those authorized to solemnize a marriage encompass religious leaders, judges, county clerks, notary publics, as well as certain mayors and legislative members.
Advocates for LGBTQ+ rights argue that the legislation aims to grant officials the ability to discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples. However, according to state Representative Monty Fritts (R), the bill’s primary House sponsor, its purpose is to prevent instances of elder abuse, where young individuals marry elderly persons to gain access to their financial assets.
When the legislation was introduced last year, there were concerns that clerks could potentially refuse to grant marriage licenses to certain couples, including same-sex couples. However, according to state Senator Mark Pody (R), the bill’s primary sponsor, it does not permit government officials to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Pody has a history of advocating against LGBTQ+ rights, having previously proposed legislation to allow state officials to disregard the legalization of marriage equality by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015, and supporting transphobic bathroom bans.
Officiant Eric A. Patton clarified that “solemnization” does not involve issuing a marriage license. He emphasized that when a clerk issues a license, they are not performing the marriage ceremony.
Critics argue that the legislation serves no purpose other than to enable discrimination, as there is currently no requirement in Tennessee for ordained individuals to officiate marriages they object to.
Patton suggested that the legislation might be an attempt to challenge marriage equality laws. He expressed concerns that the vague wording of the bill could invite lawsuits similar to those involving Kim Davis, who famously refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Kentucky.
Governor Lee has not issued a statement regarding his decision to sign the legislation. Previously, he signed several anti-LGBTQ+ bills, including bans on drag performances, gender-affirming care, and trans athletes participating in women’s and girls’ sports teams.
In January 2023, Governor Lee announced the rejection of $8.8 million in federal funds allocated for HIV prevention and treatment by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Some of these funds supported programs associated with transgender healthcare. This decision, made amidst pressure from right-wing media, resulted in the loss of critical federal funding for the state’s healthcare initiatives.
Mike DeWine announced a state “emergency,” prompting the implementation of new regulations regarding transgender medical care.
Following his applauded veto of an anti-transgender bill late last year, Ohio’s Republican governor, Mike DeWine, has now issued an executive order imposing stringent limitations on gender-affirming care for both minors and adults. Despite vetoing House Bill 46 on December 29, which aimed to restrict gender-affirming care and sports participation for transgender minors, DeWine emphasized in his veto message the life-saving impact of such care, based on discussions with the trans community.
However, DeWine hinted at concerns and the necessity for action regarding various issues, directing a cautionary note toward the Republican-dominated state legislature. In anticipation of a potential override of his veto by the Ohio House, DeWine signed an executive order last Friday, imposing even stricter restrictions on gender-affirming care compared to those outlined in HB 46.
The executive order, citing an “emergency,” mandates the immediate adoption of new restrictions by the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) without standard rule-making procedures. Effective immediately, these regulations prohibit gender-affirming surgeries for individuals under 18 for a 120-day period—a duration permissible under executive order procedures.
Additionally, the order introduces draft rules necessitating a public comment period, extending beyond youth to encompass all individuals receiving transition-related medical care. Under these proposed regulations, healthcare providers must report new diagnoses of “gender-related conditions” to the ODH within 30 days and disclose details of a patient’s gender-affirming care plan. Providers are also mandated to complete new forms prior to initiating or modifying a patient’s care, including information such as age, sex assigned at birth, and specifics regarding diagnosis or treatment.
The proposed regulations additionally stipulate that the Department of Health intends to release this aggregated data to the public from January 31, 2025, arguing that non-identifying information is not considered protected health information.
TransOhio, an advocacy group, raised concerns about the executive order on social media over the weekend, urging individuals to submit feedback on the regulations to both the ODH and the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. The latter recently published a similarly restrictive set of proposed rules on January 5, mandating, among other provisions, that providers must engage or have contractual arrangements with board-certified psychiatrists and endocrinologists. They also necessitate the submission of a detailed detransition plan for trans patients’ treatment approval by a medical ethicist. Additionally, individuals under 21 must undergo six months of psychological counseling before commencing care.
TransOhio outlined in their suggested message to the departments that these guidelines would fundamentally alter Ohio’s operational systems, placing burdens on providers and adversely impacting patients. The organization condemned the rules as unwanted, unnecessary, and potentially unconstitutional.
“Banning books — it’s wrong! Instead of erasing history, let’s make history!”
President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address told transgender Americans, “I have your back.” He also spoke against book-banning and “erasing history,” and told Congress to pass the Equality Act, legislation that would enshrine LGBTQ+ civil rights into federal law.
“Stop denying another core value of America our diversity across American life,” Biden said, about midway through his speech. “Banning books — it’s wrong! Instead of erasing history, let’s make history! I want to protect other fundamental rights! Pass the Equality Act, and my message to transgender Americans: I have your back!”
“To all the transgender Americans watching at home – especially the young people – you are so brave. I want you to know your president has your back,” he added.
In his speech, he drew a sharp distinction between the American principles of “honesty, decency, dignity, [and] equality” and the attitudes of “resentment, revenge, and retribution” harbored by “some other people my age,” subtly alluding to former President Donald Trump without directly mentioning him by name.
“I know the American story,” Biden said. “Again and again, I’ve seen the contest between competing forces in the battle for the soul of our nation: between those who want to pull America back to the past and those who want to move America into the future.”
“Not since President Lincoln and the Civil War have freedom and democracy been under assault at home as they are today,” he noted. Then, after mentioning Russian President Vladimir Putin’s continued invasion of Ukraine — something Putin has justified with anti-LGBTQ+ bigotry — Biden then mentioned the January 6, 2001 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol carried out by Trump’s followers.
“Insurrectionists stormed this very Capitol and placed a dagger at the throat of American democracy,” Biden said. “We all saw with our own eyes these insurrectionists were not patriots. They had come to stop the peaceful transfer of power and to overturn the will of the people. “
“January 6th and the lies about the 2020 election, and the plots to steal the election, posed the gravest threat to our democracy since the Civil War,” Biden continued. “But they failed. America stood strong and democracy prevailed.”
“But we must be honest,” he added, “the threat remains and democracy must be defended. My predecessor and some of you here [in Congress] seek to bury the truth of January 6th. I will not do that. This is a moment to speak the truth and bury the lies. And here’s the simplest truth: You can’t love your country only when you win.”
Acknowledging public doubts about his ability to do his job as an 81-year-old, Biden said, “In my career, I’ve been told I’m too young and I’m too old. Whether young or old, I’ve always known what endures, our North Star: The very idea of America, that we are all created equal and deserve to be treated equally throughout our lives.”
“We’ve never fully lived up to that idea, but we’ve never walked away from it either,” he said. “And I won’t walk away from it now. I’m optimistic.”
“My fellow Americans, the issue facing our nation isn’t how old we are, it’s how old our ideas are,” he continued. “Hate, anger, revenge, retribution are among the oldest of ideas. But you can’t lead America with ancient ideas that only take us back.”
“To lead America, the land of possibilities, you need a vision for the future of what America can and should be,” he added. “Tonight you’ve heard mine. “
“Above all, I see a future for all Americans,” he concluded. “I see a country for all Americans. And I will always be a president for all Americans. Because I believe in America. I believe in you the American people….So let’s build that future together. Let’s remember who we are…. There is nothing beyond our capacity when we act together.”
The Queer Migration: Exploring the Journey of Identity, Community, and Advocacy in Pursuit of Belonging and Liberation
The erosion of LGBTQ rights and the rise of anti-LGBTQ legislation has led LGBTQ families and couples to leave their home (red) state and relocate to safer, more welcoming communities. The trend has led to an unexpected point of service for clients and Alliance members.
Ryan Weyandt – CEO @ The Alliance (Moderator) Bob McCranie – Real Estate Agent & Founder of FleeRedStates.com Callen Jones – Real Estate Agent & 2022/23 Tampa Area Chapter President Brandon Beston – Real Estate Agent & 2024 Denver Chapter President
Three sitting judges, boasting almost a century of collective experience in criminal law, became casualties of Paxton’s retaliatory political campaign following their ruling against the attorney general in a 2021 voter fraud case.
On Tuesday, three incumbent judges on Texas’ highest criminal court failed in their reelection bids after Attorney General Ken Paxton focused his attention on these Republicans due to a 2021 ruling that nullified the attorney general’s authority to independently prosecute voter fraud.
According to the Associated Press, David Schenck, Gina Parker, and Lee Finley emerged victorious in their races, defeating Judges Sharon Keller, Barbara Hervey, and Michelle Slaughter respectively. Presiding Judge Keller has held her position since 1994.
Paxton singled out these judges as part of a broader political vendetta, aiming to remove Texas House members who had voted to impeach him in May.
In 2021, Keller, Hervey, and Slaughter aligned with five other Republican judges on the Court of Criminal Appeals in a voter fraud case. Their 8-1 decision determined that the Office of the Attorney General had breached the separation of powers outlined in the Texas Constitution by attempting to prosecute election cases without authorization from a local prosecutor.
However, in various media appearances and primary advertisements, Paxton portrayed the three incumbents as renegade Republicans who curtailed the attorney general’s authority to pursue voter fraud—a political issue significant to the modern GOP, especially given former President Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of election interference.
Combined, the trio of incumbents boasted nearly a century of experience in criminal law, having served as prosecutors and judges. The Court of Criminal Appeals, Texas’ highest criminal court, comprises nine judges, while civil cases are heard by the Texas Supreme Court.
While the Texas attorney general holds the position of the state’s chief lawyer, the prosecution of crimes, including voter fraud, falls under the jurisdiction of locally elected county attorneys and district attorneys.
Despite Keller, Hervey, and Slaughter no longer serving on the bench, there remain five judges on the court whom Paxton previously targeted for removal due to their opposition to him in 2021. Among them, David Newell and Bert Richardson could seek reelection in 2026, should they decide to run. Kevin Patrick Yeary, the lone pro-Paxton vote, will also face reelection in the same year.
In a statement issued by Paxton late Tuesday evening, the attorney general hailed the defeat of the incumbents as a triumph for democratic ideals.
“To those who attempt to impede justice or subvert our legal system, take heed: The people of Texas will not stand for it,” Paxton asserted in his statement. “Your days of judicial overreach are numbered, and Texans are prepared to demand accountability.”
The all-Republican court is expected to continue under GOP control, given that the three elections are open to voters across the state. It has been thirty years since a Democrat secured victory in a statewide election.
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.