Anchorage, Alaska, Proposition 1, Access to Public Bathrooms and Locker Rooms Based on Sex at Birth (April 2018)

• Text of measure
  • Ballot question
• Path to the ballot
• See also
  • External links
  • Footnotes
• More
  • Local ballot measures
  • State ballot measures
  • Local politics

Proposition 1: Anchorage Access to Public Bathrooms and Locker Rooms Based on Sex at Birth
The basics
Election date:
April 3, 2018
Status:
d Defeated
Topic:
Local LGBT issues
Related articles
Local LGBT issues on the ballot April 3, 2018 ballot measures in Alaska Anchorage Borough, Alaska ballot measures
See also
Anchorage, Alaska

A citizen initiative to restrict access to public bathrooms and locker rooms based on an individual's sex assigned at birth was on the ballot for Anchorage voters in Alaska on April 3, 2018. It was defeated.

A yes vote was a vote in favor of restricting access to facilities such as locker rooms and bathrooms on the basis of sex at birth rather than gender identity.

A no vote was a vote against restricting access to facilities such as locker rooms and bathrooms on the basis of sex at birth rather than gender identity.

Election results

Anchorage Proposition 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		41,115	52.64%
Yes		36,993	47.36%

Election results from Anchorage Department of Elections

Measure design

Proposition 1 was designed to prohibit any individual from using a restroom or locker room designated for a gender that does not correspond with the sex assigned on the individual's birth certificate.

Terminology

The measure defines sex in the following way:

“

An individual's immutable biological condition of being male or female, as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth.

”

The measure defines multiple occupancy changing rooms and bathrooms as "facilities designed or designated to be used by more than one person at a time where persons may be 'in various states of undress in the presence of other persons'; such facilities would include, but not be limited to, locker rooms, shower rooms, changing rooms and bathrooms."

Lawful practices

Proposition 1 proposed to add the following language to the Anchorage Municipal Code, section 5.20.080, Lawful Practices:

“

Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter, and except for the specific provisions applicable to municipal facilities under Municipal Code chapter 3.102, it shall not be unlawful for any employer, public accommodation, or other person to establish and enforce sex-specific standards or policies concerning access to intimate facilities such as locker rooms, showers, changing rooms, and restrooms.

”

Exceptions

Proposition 1 included the following exceptions for entry into a sex-specific restroom or locker room by an individual assigned the opposite sex at birth:

• entry for maintenance if the facility is otherwise unoccupied
• entry for medical assistance
• entry for children under eight years old when accompanied by a guardian
• entry for caretakers assisting individuals with disabilities
• entry for the opposite sex when temporarily permitted
• entry during emergencies

Text of measure

Ballot question

The ballot question was as follows:

“

This proposition enacts a law that, among other things, would: Require all multiple occupancy changing facilities and restrooms that are owned or operated by the Municipality to be designated for, and used only by, persons of the same “sex,” except: (a) for custodial or maintenance purposes, when the facility is not occupied by a member of the opposite sex; (b) to render medical assistance; (c) in the circumstance of a caretaker accompanying a disabled person for the purpose of allowing the disabled person to use the facility; (d) for minors under the age of 8, when the minor is with a person caring for the minor, and (e) for certain emergency and other situations; Provide that employers, public accommodations and other persons may establish and enforce sex-specific standards or policies concerning access to “intimate facilities,” such as locker rooms, showers, changing rooms, and restrooms; Define “sex” as an individual’s “immutable biological condition of being male or female,” as determined by “anatomy and genetics at the time of birth”; an individual’s “original birth certificate” could be relied upon as “definitive evidence” of the individual’s sex; Define “multiple occupancy changing rooms and bathrooms” as facilities designed or designated to be used by more than one person at a time where persons may be “in various states of undress in the presence of other persons”; such facilities would include, but not be limited to, locker rooms, shower rooms, changing rooms and bathrooms; Declare a policy that persons using such facilities owned or operated by the Municipality have a right to “physical privacy” that includes the right “not to be seen in various states of undress by members of the opposite sex”; and Delete the requirement in current Municipal Code that entitles persons to use restrooms, locker rooms and dressing rooms that are “consistent with their gender identity”; Municipal Code provides that a person’s “gender identity” means his or her “gender-related self-identity, as expressed in appearance or behavior, regardless of the person’s assigned sex at birth,” which may be established by medical history or, among other things, evidence that the gender identity is “sincerely held, core to a person’s gender-related selfidentity, and not being asserted for an improper purpose.” Shall this proposition become law? (Initiative Petition 2017-2)

”

Full text

The full text of the measure is available here.

Background

In September 2015, Anchorage assembly members Bill Evans and Patrick Flynn submitted ordinance AO 96 to amend Title 5 of the Anchorage Municipal Code by establishing equal rights protections for individuals based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The Anchorage Assembly passed AO 96 with a 9-2 vote. The ordinance defines gender identity and sexual orientation in the following ways:

“

Gender identity means a person's gender-related self-identity, as expressed in appearance or behavior, regardless of the person's assigned sex at birth. A person's gender identity may be established by evidence of medical history, care or treatment of the gender identity, consistent and uniform assertion of the gender identity, or other evidence that the gender identity is sincerely held, core to a person's gender-related self-identity, and not being asserted for an improper purpose. Sexual orientation means actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or asexuality.

”

Protections under Title 5 apply to employment, housing, finance, education, public accommodations, and municipal practices.

Following the passage of AO 96, Alaska Family Action President Jim Minnery stated in a newsletter that his group would submit amendments to AO 96. He said, "While not fully repealing the misguided law, our intent is to bring balance and create equal protections for people of faith who want to live and work in the public marketplace without fear of governmental intrusion and legal intimidation." Jim Minnery's spouse, Kim Minnery, submitted the petition for Proposition 1. Jim Minnery and Alaska Family Action led the campaign in support of Proposition 1.

Support

Proponents

The group Yes on 1 Protect Our Privacy, headed by chairman Jim Minnery, led the campaign in support of Proposition 1. The group made the following statement:

“

Equal rights and equal protection of all citizens must be reflected in our laws. Legally allowing males who simply declare themselves to be female full, unhindered access to female restrooms, showers, locker rooms and changing facilities puts women and children at risk of voyeurism, loss of privacy and dignity and worse. The basic assumption behind Prop 1 is that Government should protect the privacy, safety and dignity of all Alaskans in intimate settings like showers, restrooms and locker rooms - not threaten it. Sex-segregated personal facilities exist because there are very particular ways in which men and women remain different, and always will be different.

”

Much of the funding for the campaign came from Alaska Family Action.

Arguments

Reverend Undra Parker, with the endorsement of 19 local pastors, wrote the following opinion in the Anchorage Daily News:

“

On the issue of civil rights and the LGBT community; as proud African-Americans, we are horrified that anyone would equate civil rights with the choice of self-gender identifying. This comparison between gender-identity and our race is particularly offensive, because we woke up this morning — as we have every morning of our lives, and will every day for the rest of our lives — African-American. This is not because of how we 'feel inside,' or how we perceive ourselves to be. It's because this is the way we were born and, for that matter, are rightly proud of it. LGBT advocates are not the 'oppressed people' of today, and they are not the inheritors of the civil rights movement. We are deeply offended at the LGBT community, gender-identity personnel, and any others for commandeering the civil rights birthright and using it to enact their agenda. It is intellectually dishonest, and dishonors the legacy of the men and women who fought in the civil rights movement, so that their children would one day be judged by the content of their character, and not the color of their skin. ... Proposition 1 does not discriminate against the LGBT community. If there is any discrimination, it's against those who are for common sense in intimate areas, such as restrooms.

”

Opposition

Opponents

The group Fair Anchorage led the campaign No on Prop 1. The group made the following statement on its website:

“

Anchorage’s non-discrimination law ensures fair and equal treatment for everyone. But now, a vocal minority is singling out our transgender neighbors, family and friends by forcing a discriminatory initiative—Proposition 1—on the April 2018 ballot. Discrimination isn’t who we are in Anchorage. That’s why the people of our municipality are standing together to vote no against this discriminatory initiative that goes against our Alaskan values.

”

The following groups and individuals opposed Proposition 1:

• Anchorage Chamber of Commerce
• Generation Action – Students for Reproductive Justice at the University of Alaska Anchorage
• Democratic Party of Alaska
• Washington Won't Discriminate
• AnchorVote
• Mayor Ethan Berkowitz
• Mayoral candidate Rebecca Logan
• Former superintendent of Anchorage School District Carol Comeau
• Anchorage Businesses Against Proposition 1 (see list of businesses here)

Arguments

Former Republican Alaska State Senator Arliss Sturgulewski stated the following opinion in the Anchorage Daily News:

“

This initiative puts our values to the test. Let's be clear: Proposition 1 targets transgender individuals who want to safely and privately use public facilities, just like the rest of us. Most transgender individuals have been harassed using public restrooms, and many have been physically assaulted. The current non-discrimination law provides them with the freedom to choose the facilities in which they are comfortable and safe. That freedom should belong to the individual, not put up for a citywide vote.

”

Chris Cooke, Western regional field organizer for the Human Rights Campaign, posted the following to HRC.org:

“

There’s a very clear reason why businesses oppose these type of proposals and Republican governors in some of the most conservative states have vetoed them. Discrimination not only harms people, but it’s also very bad for business.

”

Radio broadcaster Shannyn Moore wrote the following in response to Undra Parker and 19 local pastors in the Anchorage Daily News:

“

Anchorage voters are asked once again to declare if they are homophobic or not on the upcoming ballot. ... Some of the most famous transgender people in the country are also people of color. The population most at risk for violence in this country are transgendered minorities.

”

NAACP Anchorage Chapter President Kevin McGee wrote the following opinion in the Anchorage Daily News:

“

It is illegal, and will remain illegal, to harass or assault people in bathrooms. To fix a nonexistent 'problem,' Proposition 1 proponents propose making school districts and other employers require bathroom users to prove their gender identity and prohibit transgender individuals from using the 'wrong' bathroom. This proposal is absurd on its face.

”

Reverend Matt Schultz of Christians for Equality wrote the following in an opinion in the Anchorage Daily News:

“

If you want to look beyond dehumanizing ballot initiatives to a true depiction of Jesus, look to groups that reach out in love to provide community to people like refugees, the LGBTQIA community, or any group that is repeatedly pushed to the outskirts of acceptance.

”

Campaign finance

The opposition campaign—Fair Anchorage—raised about $820,000 in contributions, which was about six and a half times the $128,000 raised by the support campaign—Yes on 1 Protect Our Privacy.

Other measures

Ballotpedia covered a gender identity anti-discrimination veto referendum in Massachusetts in 2018. Voters in the state of Massachusetts decided whether to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity in public places by voting to uphold or overturn Senate Bill 2407.

You can also view more of Ballotpedia's coverage of bathroom access laws based on gender identity here.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in Alaska

On March 28, 2017, Kim Minnery, spouse of Alaska Family Action President Jim Minnery, and co-sponsor Stephanie Williams submitted an application to the Anchorage municipal clerk for the initiative petition, originally titled the "Protect our Privacy Initiative." Following approval of the application, Minnery, Williams, and other proponents were required to collect 5,754 signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot. Alaska law requires municipal initiative campaigns to collect signatures in the amount equal to 10 percent of ballots cast in the previous mayoral election. Proponents submitted a total of 8,500 signatures, of which over 6,200 were valid, according to the municipal clerk's press release on July 27, 2017. The press release referred to the initiative as “Regulating Access to Facilities Such as Locker Rooms and Bathrooms on the Basis of Sex at Birth, Rather Than Gender Identity."

See also

Local measures

• Local measures in 2018
• Local LGBT issues on the ballot

Alaska

• April 3, 2018 measures in Alaska
• Local ballot measures, Alaska
• Anchorage, Alaska

News and analysis

• State and local preemption conflicts
• Measures advancing national agendas

External links

Suggest a link

• Search Google News for this topic
• Anchorage County Elections Office website