Civil rights debate draws discussion, but no action

WASHINGTON — County supervisors allowed a handful of public comments from advocates asking for a local civil rights ordinance Tuesday morning, but say they still don’t plan to take action on it for the time being.

The development comes months after Iowa became the first state to strip protections for “gender identity” from its civil rights code, in a move the Republican-controlled legislature said was needed to uphold other protections in sex-segregated spaces like locker rooms and bathrooms.

Opponents, however, have argued that the changes will legalize discrimination against transgender Iowans — especially at small businesses — when the law takes effect July. 1. A local movement has picked up public support, as members seek gender identity-based protections in Washington County’s local laws to fill the gap made in state code.

“Trans people are here, we are your neighbors, your co-workers, we are members of your church,” said Sean McConnell, a trans man from Washington at the Tuesday morning meeting. “Everyone deserves to know they are safe and a valued member of their community. I am not asking for special rights, I am just asking that I won’t be fired or evicted just because I am transgender.”

Advocates insist goals are nonpartisan

Amid culture war clashes, debates about gender identity have largely been settled along party lines. Although a handful of Republicans in the Iowa Legislature voted against Senate File 418 — the state bill in question Tuesday morning — most have argued that gender identity should match one’s sex assigned at birth.

Still, those calling for county civil rights protections say their aim isn’t inherently ideological.

“Back in 2007, there were nine Republicans who voted to add transgender (people) to the Iowa civil rights bill,” said Dan Henderson, president of the advocacy group Washington for Justice, after presenting supervisors with a petition containing 200 names of county residents who supported the call for a local civil rights ordinance. “You can be a Republican and stand up for the rights of all people … we are only as free as the most at-risk group in our community.”

  Buy Photo

Henderson is one of a handful of locals who have quietly but persistently pushed for county action on the matter in the last several weeks. Others have launched email campaigns, or sat in on county meetings where they’ve held signs encouraging discussion on SF 418.

Martha Sherman, a bishop for the Midwest region of the Roman Catholic Womenpriests, also spoke at the Tuesday morning’s meeting, in favor of local civil rights protections.

She cited Luke 10:30 in her appeal, a biblical parable about a Samaritan helping a wounded man found at the side of the road, despite their differing backgrounds.

“You brought up your faith in some of your responses to emails, you quoted Scripture, so I’m back at you,” Sherman said. “Do you only represent the Republicans, in Washington County? And do you know that every Republican in Washington County believes we should take transgender rights away? I don’t think so.”

Supervisors appear skeptical

Washington’s all-Republican board of supervisors did not speak on the civil rights issue Tuesday morning, and their meeting agenda called only for public comments related to Iowa Senate File 418, not for any action items related to it.

Privately, members of the county’s top decision-making board said any civil rights ordinance or resolution was a tough sell.

“I’m pretty set in my conservative ways, and what they’re suggesting does not align with my belief system,” Supervisor Jack Seward Jr. said. “I get the human rights part, and I get that people should not be discriminated against, but I also believe … when you start trying to force other people to go along with something that’s not reality, I don’t think that government should force people to do that.”

  Buy Photo

Board Chair Richard Young said he didn’t plan to put any civil rights-related action item on county agendas in the near future, but he offered a different rationale.

He said county codes would have minimal effects, given the reach of its jurisdiction which extends only to rural, unincorporated areas, and not into any of Washington County’s nine cities which contain the bulk of its housing and businesses.

Previously, Young has also expressed skepticism about the chances of passing any changes like those requested by McConnell, Sherman, Henderson and others.

“The board is pretty conservative,” he said last week in an interview with The Union. “When I’ve talked to them individually … they have no desire to do this.”

The chair did note, however, that he’d be more open to the idea if Washington County sees an uptick in documented discrimination after SF 418 takes effect at the start of next month. But he’s previously expressed skepticism about that happening, and said Tuesday that any such reforms would take a long time.

“(We don’t know) what the effect of that law’s going to be, on the people,” Young said. “This is going to be a slow process, it’s not something that’s going to be done in a day. And then there’s also the other possibility, that if we do this, the state could sue us.”

State legislator stands by his vote

Iowa Rep. Jeff Shipley (R-Birmingham) also spoke at Tuesday morning’s meeting. Though he does not represent Washington County constituents, the Republican lawmaker from Van Buren County did vote in favor of SF 418 earlier this year.

The representative said removing the term “gender identity” from state civil rights law was key to prevent conflicts with other protections based on sex. Many Republican lawmakers have raised concerns about men using women’s locker rooms under the false pretense of being transgender, for example.

“The clearest thing the legislature felt needed to be resolved is the contest between gender identity and sex, as it exists under protected classes,” Shipley said. “Unless we have laws that are very easy to understand and very easy to apply, it’s going to create a lot of unnecessary conflict, and we’ve had lots of legal cases.”

Shipley argued that federal law still included protections for trans Iowans, citing the Americans with Disabilities Act as a pathway to some rights, and mentioning Bostock v. Clayton County, a 2020 Supreme Court case that effectively established gender identity and sexuality as protected classes at the federal level.

  Buy Photo

Others have argued that those laws are insufficient for a number of reasons, saying gender dysphoria shouldn’t be evaluated as a disability, and noting that Title VII — the federal law at the heart of the Bostock ruling — applies only to employers of 15 or more people, a threshold many local small businesses in Washington County don’t exceed.

Some advocates assert that SF 418 created new uncertainties by putting Iowa Code in conflict with Bostock’s precedent. Asked about that potential clash’s impact on the need for legal clarity he cited earlier, Shipley said he believed nationwide case law would evolve in the next several years.

“There are still some potholes in the legal landscape, and I think there are still some legal questions that, again, you can only cross those bridges when you get there,” he said. “And until someone files a lawsuit and it’s before a judge, who knows what the law says?”

Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com