I almost started this by saying, “well, this is it—things can’t get any dumber,” but then I remembered how many times that statement has turned out to be wrong. What triggered it this time was learning about Montana Senate Bill 235, because if that bill became law, schools in that state would be forbidden to teach science.

Ah. I see that, even after all this time, some of you are still reluctant to believe me when I report things like this. “I’ve trusted you so far, Kevin, to the point that I was about to start writing you a series of large checks on a monthly basis. But now I’m not so sure, because this cannot be real.” But it is. Here’s the Montana state legislature admitting it, and here’s the text of the bill:

“WHEREAS, the purpose of K-12 education is to educate children in the facts of our world to better prepare them for their future …, and to that end children must know the difference between scientific fact and scientific theory; and

WHEREAS, a scientific fact is observable and repeatable, and if it does not meet these criteria, it is a theory that is defined as speculation and is for higher education to explore, debate, and test to ultimately reach a scientific conclusion of fact or fiction.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

NEW SECTION. Section 1. Requirements for science instruction in schools.

(1) Science instruction may not include subject matter that is not scientific fact.

(2) The board of public education may not include in content area standards any standard requiring curriculum or instruction in a scientific topic that is not scientific fact.

(3) The superintendent of public instruction shall ensure that any science curriculum guides developed by the office of public instruction include only scientific fact.

(4)(a) The trustees of a school district shall ensure that science curriculum and instructional materials, including textbooks, used in the district include only scientific fact.

(b) Beginning July 1, 2025, a parent may appeal the trustees’ lack of compliance … to the county superintendent and, subsequently, to the superintendent of public instruction….

(5) The legislature intends for this section to be strictly enforced and narrowly interpreted.

(6) As used in this section, “scientific fact” means an indisputable and repeatable observation of a natural phenomenon.”

Emphasis added. So if this were to become law, kids in grades K-12 could be instructed only about “scientific facts,” and anything that isn’t a “scientific fact” would be purged from their textbooks. Just the facts—what could be wrong with that, the sponsor of this bill would probably say if you asked him? But of course the kicker is section six, which limits the definition of “scientific fact” to “an indisputable and repeatable observation of a natural phenomenon.” Indisputable. Under this bill, anything that can be disputed would fail to qualify as a “scientific fact,” and could not be taught to the children of Montana.

Taken literally, that would be pretty much everything short of a purely objective measurement. The sponsor probably doesn’t intend it to be taken that literally, and even if he did, stuff like basic chemistry and physics might survive. So kids would still learn to do more than, like, count things. But the word “indisputable” would dramatically limit what can be taught as “science.” (I realize I probably don’t need to explain this to you, but allow me to vent for a couple of paragraphs.) In fact, you could argue this would eliminate the scientific method itself, which is fundamentally about disputing things and trying to disprove hypotheses.

Well, it wouldn’t eliminate it, you just couldn’t teach kids in Montana about it.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Daniel Emrich, isn’t wrong to say that scientific facts should be “observable” and “repeatable,” but he’s plainly unclear on the concept of “theories,” as the preface to the bill shows. Theories are not “defined as speculation.” A particular “theory” might be speculative if it hasn’t been tested, but I think scientists would call that a “hypothesis.” A hypothesis that stands up to testing might get promoted to a “theory,” but that doesn’t mean it becomes “indisputable.” My understanding is that people are still disputing some of what Newton and Einstein thought about gravity, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t tell kids about it. Studies have repeatedly shown it works, even in Montana.

My guess would be that what Emrich is really after here is stuff like the “theory of evolution” or the “theory of climate change,” without actually saying so. He is free to dispute those, but he’s got First Amendment problems with trying to ban teaching them. And I agree that as the preface says, children “must know the difference between scientific fact and scientific theory,” but legislators should too.

To give credit where credit is due, Emrich has also sponsored a bill that would eliminate jail penalties for littering, and I’m completely on board with that one.

Student Activists Win in Montana

Student activists prevail in a climate change trial that’s been pending in Montana for years. In Montana, the state constitution was revised in 1972 to protect the environment of the state. “The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations,” reads Article IX, Part IX. And it goes on to require that “the…

View On WordPress

In the past three years, as bills targeting gender-affirming care for transgender youth have circulated through state legislatures, some anti-trans activists have thrown around staggering detransition rates—often claiming figures as high as 80% to 90%. These numbers have surfaced everywhere from Montana's legislative hearings on gender-affirming care bans to segments on Fox News. Chloe Cole herself has echoed these claims multiple times. Now, consider this: conservative estimates place the transgender population in the United States at over 1.5 million people. If these extremely high rates were accurate, we'd expect to see around 1.2 million detransitioners. Therapist offices would be slammed with people wanting to “change back,” hearing rooms would be packed to the brim with detransitioners, and prime time news-hour specials would feature… well, people other than Chloe Cole on a regular basis. So when Seven News releases a special stating that they are going to cover “the most controversial topic ever covered,” featuring the same faces that we have seen in multiple ads across the world, people understandingly become skeptical. If detransitioners are so rare, why is Chloe Cole’s face the one they always use? ... It's worth noting that Seven News didn't just recycle the same detransitioners commonly featured in other anti-trans specials to suggest a sweeping wave of detransitioning. The network also included images of a transgender individual who has not detransitioned, implicitly suggesting she regretted her transition.

The far right can find so few detransitioners to fuel its narrative that they are even using images of people who are not detransitioners without permission, on top of just flying the same handful of people all over the country to repeat the same bullshit in every state.

The lack of a detransition wave has even played a key role in court cases. Earlier this year, when asked to substantiate the claim that gender affirming care results in youth who will eventually regret their decisions, the state of Florida ran into a problem. They could not find a single detransitioner in the state of Florida to support the claim. As a result, the judge in the case found the facts in favor of the plaintiffs opposing Florida’s gender affirming care ban. Even in a state as populous as Florida, which has over 90,000 transgender people according to expert estimates, detransitioners appear rare.

And, as the post says, even the detransitioners that exist are generally not useful to the transphobe narrative, since they most often do so due to a lack of support and often retransition when in a better situation.

Importantly, transphobes never seem to actually care about the dignity or healthcare access of detransitioners or anything. Only about banning trans healthcare as a whole because "what if people regret it?" They are not subtle about this either. They constantly refer to trans people (detransitioned or not) as "mutilated", "damaged", "ruined", and so on.

Republicans across the country are waging a movement to remove and censure Democratic lawmakers simply for speaking out against the GOP — a movement that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, is saying is the next natural step after the GOP-backed attempted coup on January 6, 2021. On Wednesday, Ocasio-Cortez spoke at a rally with Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., and Tennessee state Rep. Justin Jones (D), who Republicans voted to expel from the legislature earlier this month. At the rally, she said that the January 6 attack was just one of the first steps toward the GOP's goal of total political control; rather than a large, violent coup, the GOP is implementing a slow takeover across the country. "For [Republicans], January 6 was just a dress rehearsal. Because, legally, let's not lose the plot: They were trying to block a duly elected official, in this case the president of the United States, from taking office," she said. "Legislatures across the country looked at that and [said], 'you know what? Let's try to get Representative Jones out from office. Let's try to get Rep. Zooey Zephyr in Montana out of office. Let's try to kick out the people because we cannot beat them,'" continued Ocasio-Cortez. "That is their motive."

AOC: “January 6 was a dress rehearsal” for GOP campaign to expel Democrats

As Predicted, Anti-Drag Laws Are Being Weaponized to Silence Trans People | The Mary Sue

A few months ago, Adria Jawort and others testified before the Montana legislature that its law banning drag events at public libraries would be used to target and silence transgender people. Just as she and others anticipated, it’s now being used to bar her from speaking about LGBTQ+ history.

Jawort, a Cheyenne writer and transgender woman, had been scheduled to speak at Butte-Silver Bow Public Library about the history of the two-spirit tradition in Native American culture. “Two-spirit” is an indigenous term for the alternative gender status of tribe members who have both male and female traits, a fascinating example of how trans and nonbinary people have always existed in all cultures and societies. The library canceled her talk—again, a history lecture, not a drag show—out of fear that they would run afoul of the state’s new anti-drag law and risk losing their public funding.

[Photo ID: Article screen cap on a light background. Title text reads: ''I can't leave all the people who can't leave,' A Montana trans activist shows solidarity with trans youth & siblings in Florida--& vice versa. Adria L. Jawort. Dec. 13, 2023.' A color photo of a white adult standing outside in the sun, wearing sunglasses and smiling slightly, holding a sign that reads 'Florida Man Says Trans Rights.' /End ID]

Here's also a wonderful piece written by @indigitrans about the October 2023 Trans Youth March in Orlando (@transyouthmarch). Read the full thing here: https://adriajawort.substack.com/p/i-cant-leave-all-the-people-who-cant In the new year & facing more legal woes, it's easy to feel overwhelmed and frightened. One of the reasons that I started these accounts last year was to bring trans people together and remind ourselves that we're not alone. We have a lot of support, especially from each other. There are many trans Floridians who cannot leave the state or just plain don't want to. Why should we? And for what reason, anyway, when this is legislature that is creeping across the US and worldwide, regardless. Moving will not prevent this from happening. We must learn to build community and resources. We must look to other groups who have faced this before us, we must SUPPORT other groups who are still oppressed alongside us. The same systems oppress us all. None of us are free until we're all free. The stories that get the most attention are always the stories of panic and outrage. Don't believe them. There's many trans Floridians still here and thriving. We're resourceful and resilient and we're looking out for others too and vice versa. We're not alone and we didn't all leave and that is not the only answer. Our stories might not have the punch of a quick TikTok about Ron DeSantis kidnapping trans kids but most often the truth of any resistance cannot be summed up so quickly. It's persistence and resourcefulness. It's building community and caring for each other every. single. day. Anyway, we're all amazing & deserve to be here & you should internalize that message above any others saying otherwise. Don't listen to ignorant, hateful people just because they're loud sometimes. We have more support than not. And we're not going anywhere.

"Two years ago, the biggest battles in state legislatures were over voting rights. Democrats loudly — and sometimes literally — protested as Republicans passed new voting restrictions in states like Georgia, Florida and Texas. This year, attention has shifted to other hot-button issues, but the fight over the franchise has continued. Republicans have enacted dozens of laws this year that will make it harder for some people to vote in future elections. 

But this year, voting-rights advocates got some significant wins too: States — controlled by Democrats and Republicans — have enacted more than twice as many laws expanding voting rights as restricting them, although the most comprehensive voter-protection laws passed in blue states. In all, 39 states and Washington, D.C., have changed their election laws in some way this year...

Where voting rights were expanded in 2023 (so far)

Unlike two years ago, though, we’d argue that the bigger story of this year’s legislative sessions was all the ways states made it easier to vote. As of July 21, according to the Voting Rights Lab, [which runs an excellent and completely comprehensive tracker of election-related bills], 834 bills had been introduced so far this year expanding voting rights, and 64 had been enacted. What’s more, these laws are passing in states of all hues.

Democratic-controlled jurisdictions (Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island and Washington) enacted 33 of these new laws containing voting-rights expansions, but Republican-controlled states (Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming) were responsible for 23 of them. The remaining eight became law in states where the two parties share power (Nevada, Pennsylvania and Virginia).

That said, not all election laws are created equal, and the most comprehensive expansive laws passed in blue states. For example: 

New Mexico adopted a major voting-rights package that will automatically register New Mexicans to vote when they interact with the state’s Motor Vehicle Division, allow voters to request absentee ballots for all future elections without the need to reapply each time and restore the right to vote to felons who are on probation or parole. The law also allows Native Americans to register to vote and receive ballots at official tribal buildings and makes it easier for Native American officials to get polling places set up in pueblos and on tribal land.

Minnesota followed suit with a law also establishing automatic voter registration and a permanent absentee-voting list. The act allows 16- and 17-year-olds to preregister to vote too. Meanwhile, a separate new law also reenfranchises felons on probation or parole.

Michigan enacted eight laws implementing a constitutional amendment expanding voting rights that voters approved last year. Most notably, the laws guarantee at least nine days of in-person early voting and allow counties to offer as many as 29. The bills also allow voters to fix mistakes on their absentee-ballot envelopes so that their ballot can still count, track the status of their ballot online, and use student, military and tribal IDs as proof of identification. 

Connecticut became the sixth state to enact a state-level voting-rights act, which bars municipalities from discriminating against minority groups in voting, requires them to provide language assistance to certain language minority groups and requires municipalities with a record of voter discrimination to get preclearance before changing their election laws. The Nutmeg State also approved 14 days of early voting and put a constitutional amendment on the 2024 ballot that would legalize no-excuse absentee voting.

No matter its specific provisions, each of these election-law changes could impact how voters cast their ballots in future elections, including next year’s closely watched presidential race. There’s a good chance your state amended its election laws in some way this year, so make sure you double-check the latest rules in your state before the next time you vote."

-via FiveThirtyEight (via FutureCrunch), July 24, 2023

A trans woman won a state legislature seat in Montana

“We are seeing a coordinated effort from far-right organizations in the country who are pitching these kinds of bills.

It's why the language matches so similarly to other bills. It's why the openings of representatives who are pushing these anti-trans bills sound eerily similar to the openings of legislators in other areas.

It's why the same handful of, quote, ‘detransitioners’ are flying around the country to speak on these bills.

And I think what we saw that at the beginning, because it's important to remember that these anti-trans bills began initially with a failed attempt at bathroom bans, and then their second attempt to sort of find a way in, was in sports bans. But their goal was never to simply pass a sports ban.

The goal was, as was stated in one of the conservative conventions this year, the goal was the elimination of trans people from public life, entirely.

And we have seen that escalation of legislation over the past few years.

We have seen it go, and now we're seeing these healthcare bans beginning to take root. We're seeing healthcare bans not just for youth, but in Missouri, adult healthcare bans. And in Florida, we bills that make it so that a trans child could be taken away from their parents. And Florida just passed a bathroom ban that makes it incredibly difficult to be a trans person in public.

So we're seeing not only coordinated efforts from far-right groups in the country to pass anti-trans legislation, but we are seeing an escalation of those attacks with an ultimate goal of removing trans people from public life entirely.

And that is why trans people and our allies are standing in our communities and standing in our legislatures and bringing attention to the urgency of this situation.”

—ZOEY ZEPHYR, Montana’s first openly transgender representative, speaking about Montana’s Senate Bill 99, trans representation, and anti-LGBTQ legislation currently sweeping Republican states.

SJ Howell

Gender: Non binary (they/them)

Sexuality: Queer

DOB: 3 July 1980  

Ethnicity: White - American

Occupation: Politician (Democrat), activist

Note: First non-binary person to be elected to the state legislature in Montana

The first openly transgender state representative in Montana history is facing either censure or outright expulsion, after she said Republicans would have “blood on their hands” for passing a ban on gender-affirming care for minors.

Rep. Zooey Zephyr was sworn in just three months ago after winning a Missoula-based seat in November. GOP leaders have refused to recognize her in floor debates until she apologizes for the comment. On Monday, supporters rallied on the steps of the state Capitol, and chants of “Let her speak!” shut down proceedings in the House for nearly a half-hour, as Zephyr hoisted her microphone above her head.

On Tuesday, Zephyr tweeted a letter she received from leaders in the Republican-controlled chamber declaring their intention to bring a motion “with respect to the conduct of Representative Zooey Zephyr.”

The House will “determine if [Zephyr]’s conduct on the Floor of the House on April 24, 2023 violated the rules, collective rights, safety, dignity, integrity, or decorum of the House of Representatives, and if so, whether to impose disciplinary consequences for those actions,” according to the letter sent to Zephyr. The House will meet Wednesday afternoon.

“I have been informed that during tomorrow’s floor session there will be a motion to either censure or expel me,” Zephyr said in a Tuesday tweet. “I’ve also been told I’ll get a chance to speak. I will do as I have always done—rise on behalf of my constituents, in defense of my community, & for democracy itself.”

Zephyr’s clash with the GOP began last week when she made the comment during a floor debate on the transition care ban. Since then, Republicans have refused to let her participate in floor debates entirely, even when she’s requested to speak last week, the far-right Montana Freedom Caucus demanded Zephyr’s immediate censure while misgendering her in their statement.

The move to silence Zephyr has been met with fierce protests. On Monday, supporters rallied on the steps of the state Capitol, and chants of “Let her speak!” shut down proceedings in the House for nearly a half-hour, as Zephyr hoisted her microphone above her head.

Riot cops who were called to the chamber arrested seven protesters. Republicans claimed that the protests had turned violent, though the protesters were charged only with criminal trespassing, a misdemeanor. In the letter, Republican leaders said the House gallery, where Montana citizens are able to watch proceedings, will be closed Wednesday during the debate on whether to punish Zephyr.

“It’s not enough for them to get the harmful bills through,” Zephyr told reporters Monday. “When someone stands up and calls out their bills for the harm they cause, for the deaths they cause, they want silence. And we will not be complicit in our eradication.”

Montana House Speaker Matt Regier said in a statement Tuesday that “the choice not to follow House rules is one that Rep. Zephyr has made.”

“The only person silencing Rep. Zephyr is Rep. Zephyr. The Montana House will not be bullied,” Regier said.

Tensions have escalated in state legislatures such as Montana’s this year, as Republicans across the country have used simple rules violations as a pretext to crack down on dissent.

Earlier this month, the Tennessee House of Representatives expelled two young Black lawmakers, Rep. Justin Pearson of Memphis and Rep. Justin Jones of Nashville, and nearly expelled a third white lawmaker from Knoxville, after the trio protested for gun law reforms in the wake of the Covenant School shooting in Nashville in March.

The move, however, backfired spectacularly. Pearson and Jones became national figures overnight, they were quickly re-appointed to the seats they’d been expelled from, and both are expected to run in special elections to determine a replacement for, well, themselves. They met with President Joe Biden at the White House earlier this week.

Tennessee Republicans have also drawn increased scrutiny to themselves, after expelling Jones and Pearson for bringing “disorder and dishonor” to the legislature; a member of the leadership abruptly resigned last week after a complaint that he’d sexually harassed an intern became public, and the Speaker of the Tennessee House, Cameron Sexton, has faced new questions about whether he really resides in his district.

On Tuesday, Pearson offered his support to Zephyr in a tweet.

“Voices across the country continue to rise for justice and expose the anti-democratic behavior of people in Republican led states,” Pearson said. “We will not let our democracy die without fighting for every voice. We are in this fight from Memphis to Montana!”

By Brooke Migdon

The Hill

April 19, 2023

A group of Republicans in the Montana legislature have called for the immediate censure of Democratic Rep. Zooey Zephyr — the state’s first and only openly transgender legislator — after she told lawmakers on Tuesday that there will be “blood on your hands” if a bill to ban minors from accessing gender-affirming health care is approved by the state House.

“If you are forcing a trans child to go through puberty when they are trans, that is tantamount to torture. This body should be ashamed,” Zephyr said Tuesday during a floor debate over amendments to Montana’s Senate Bill 99, a wide-reaching bill that would prevent medical professionals from administering gender-affirming health care to transgender youths under 18.

“If you vote yes on this bill and yes on these amendments, I hope the next time there’s an invocation when you bow your heads in prayer, you see the blood on your hands,” Zephyr said. 

Read more.

me drama posting cuz i actually had a really good experience today but it was rly nerve wracking lmao

in case some of you didn't know, i currently live in montana!! it's a nice enough state for its nature and the like, but politically it's kind of a shit show. pros and cons y'know, but as a trans guy it's fairly lame. also, bcuz geography is important, i live in eastern montana, not on the cool western side where all the mountain queers go hang out. that's generalizing a lot but it is what it is so bare with

anyway, back in 2021 there was a bill passed (SB 280) that effectively made it impossible for trans people to change their gender marker on their birth certificate or other identifying documents without having a sex change surgery, while at the same time writing in that no surgery exists to change your sex on a chromosomal level or any of that bullshit. whereas before that bill was passed, montana law was a little more loosey goosey about it. mainly in that it didn't yet have a republican legislature hyperfixated on a culture war to drum up support so trans people weren't really IDENTIFIED by the law, which was ironically kind of easier to navigate. idk, shit weird, i'm no expert

anyway, tbh, i never really CARED about changing my gender marker. i changed my name legally back when i was like 15 or 16 and i believe, at that time, i had the option to simultaneously change my gender marker. for whatever reason, i decided not to. i think it had something to do with healthcare and trying not to fuck up the future possibility of getting on T, which didn't happen for another year for me. i've also always been fairly loose about my gender identity in terms of a full identification with maleness/manhood. like, i'm a guy, i'm a dude, don't call me anything except that, but on a deeply personal level i see myself a little more in between on that kind of scale. maybe something inherently non-binary but no label has ever quite fit the bill, so trans guy with an asterisk will have to do. anyway!!! i don't really recall why i made that call, but i had, and it truthfully never really got me into any trouble. for all the times i later had to flash my ID, even to this date, i can only really recall one time where a gas station clerk gave me a weird look and said "sir... ma'am... sir-ma'am... here ya go" when i was buying cigarettes lmao. i was never questioned about it by employers and as far as i know was never turned away from a job because of it (which is good because montana doesn't have employment protections for trans people (last i checked)). so i truthfully spent a good 7 or so years relatively unbothered by this fact or by the fact that i had an F on my driver's license. it was inconsequential to me

recently though with republicans doing more and more lines of anti-LGBTQ cocaine and more people becoming aware of trans people, it's been unsettling here. y'know just mildly discomforting. and mentally that is fatiguing. i've also only now encountered some bureaucratic bullshit that's like okay, wow, this is actually going to be a bigger problem in the future and i'm not wanting to deal with that. mainly in the form of i'm getting married here soon, we want to try and do some kind of honeymoon adventure in the distant future, so for that i need an passport and from what i've read that can be a real fucking headache for trans people and it can be even harder to change in the future. so like blugh. i'm also in the process of applying to grad school and it's just--kind of annoying to have to identify myself a certain way. it's weird cuz i won't pretend it's put me in some life-threatening situation or there's anything that feels DIRE about needing to change it, but it just feels like there'd be a lot less awkwardness and vulnerability if i did. ironically when montanans were less redpilled i didn't care about changing all my legal shit over, but now that your average grandpa here thinks of trans people as botched teenage girls or child predators in bathrooms and THAT's their reason for getting out of the house to go to the polls next year, well yeah now i give a shit about "deceiving" the system. idk it's dumb

anyway i actually KNOW the girl who is the plaintiff against the govt in the lawsuit against SB 280. she's really cool and it's cool that i know her. i ended up reaching out to her a few months back to ask how that was going and what it meant for changing your gender marker in MT. and fantastically i had found out that late 2022 the judge on the case had issued an order that forced the DPHHS to suspend its practice under SB 280 since it was a fundamentally unworkable law and to return to its original practice prior, which allowed trans people and frankly anyone else with good enough cause to change their gender marker without meeting some bullshit made up requirements by the state.

it then took me months to get the gumption to actually write, edit, and file a petition for it. which i finally did today, and it surprisingly all got done in an afternoon, even though hypothetically the courthouse at 1PM on a tuesday should've been fairly busy. i'll be interested to see how it goes, because just cuz it's filed doesn't mean anything is certain. to my knowledge, LEGALLY, it should be a done deal, i should get an order from the judge that will allow me to get a new birth certificate and a new driver's license and all that jazz. but what do i know? the judge may want to have a hearing about it, which could be incredibly awkward in a courtroom full of other people waiting to have their cases heard, but idfk. my fingers are crossed that it'll go okay.

and it was kind of a good experience? i was as anxious as one could imagine. i'm a bearded dude walking in with paperwork asking kindly for an F to become an M lol. and the gals at the courthouse were momentarily confused, raised a few brows, had to talk to someone to see what the current rulings were in that previously mentioned lawsuit, but they were nice enough about it. they got my shit filed, they took $120 from me rather apologetically cuz that's what shit costs to file a civil petition in the state district courts. i get to find out by email if the judge will just approve the order i drafted or if he's going to want to speak to me. and i'm hoping either of those things happen before the wedding so none of that paperwork becomes a headache.

anyway this is a long post cuz i have a lot of thoughts and either i ramble on and on to my fiancee about it or i just splurge on whatever few unfortunate souls decide to read this :) thx if you do. there's no point really to any of it yk just airing out some thoughts i guess. i'll go draw some gay shit now <3

By Melinda Butterfield 

The attacks on Zooey Zephyr in Montana, Justin Jones and Justin Pearson in Tennessee, and Mauree Turner in Oklahoma go far beyond the scope of electoral politics. They are attacks on the right of oppressed people to be represented or even speak on matters that directly affect their lives.

It's ironic that the administration of the oldest president could be marked by the emergence of a fresh crop of politically savvy young politicians.

David Hogg, one of the organizers of March For Our Lives, is co-founder of a group dedicated to supporting young liberals who run for office.

Leaders We Deserve describes itself as an "EMILY’s List for young people" and that's a useful way to look at it.

The PAC was founded just over five months ago and it's off to a good start.

A Democratic group that aims to recruit and support young candidates for state legislative office announced it raised more than $3 million in the latest quarter of fundraising.   Leaders We Deserve — a group founded by activist David Hogg along with Kevin Lata, Rep. Maxwell Frost’s (D-Fla.) former campaign manager — announced Wednesday its fundraising haul between October and December. More than 100,000 donations were made, with the average contribution being $25, according to figures first shared with The Hill. The group received donations from every state.

Their original goal was to raise $1 million but they took in triple that. And they are using those funds to help younger candidates in races where they can make the biggest difference.

In an interview with The Hill, Hogg said that the goal last quarter was to raise at least $1 million. Hogg, a survivor of the Parkland high school shooting in 2018 who also co-founded March for Our Lives, said the group would be announcing its next slate of endorsed candidates “very soon” and was in the “final stages” of choosing the next picks.   “Part of what we’re doing is really narrowing in on the states where young people can have the biggest impact and not just in voting for these candidates, of course, but voting in statewide races where they may be more inspired to turn out and vote in the first place, especially in a place like Montana, for example, where we could potentially help to break the supermajority,” Hogg told The Hill. Hogg also noted the importance of keeping young voters engaged, as they’ve proven to make or break key races. “The number one reason why young people have turned out to vote so much over the past three election cycles is because of Donald Trump in terms of voting against him, but Donald Trump is not going to be there forever,” said the Leaders We Deserve co-founder.   “And from the work that young people [have] done in the movements over the past several election cycles like March for Our Lives, the environmental movement, the movement for racial justice and others, we know that young people are one of our best ways of stopping Democratic backsliding, ’cause they turn out and vote in such a high rate,” Hogg said. “But we can’t just keep voting against things. We have to vote for something, and we also need to see ourselves represented in office to know that our votes are actually mattering and having an impact and to give us what I perceive to be the greatest way to help our democracy, which is hope.” 

People who vote are taken more seriously than people who don't vote. And one thing which encourages voting is having candidates who reflect the electorate.

Briefly mentioned in the article is that Leaders We Deserve places a high priority on state legislative races. Many disturbing anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ laws get passed in red states because MAGA Republicans have supermajorities in legislatures.

If you're interested, visit their site. If you do contact them, encourage them to become active on Tumblr.

Leaders We Deserve | Invest in Young People

And because state legislative races deserve more attention, look up who represents you in your state capital. If it's MAGA Republicans, get active in the campaign of their Democratic opponents.

Find Your Legislators Look your legislators up by address or use your current location.

Thinking of running for state legislature yourself? The age and residency requirements are mostly lower than for Congress. See what the requirements are in your state.

Eligibility Requirements to Run for the State Legislature

Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama (among others) all served in their state legislatures at one time.

Perhaps you are one of the leaders your state deserves. 🙂

Montana Judge Blocks Trans Ban Citing Overwhelming Medical Evidence

Erin Reed reports that a Montana judge has blocked a gender affirming care ban for trans youth as unconstitutional, citing overwhelming medical evidence and violations of fundamental rights in the state constitution.

District Court Judge Jason Marks agreed with transgender youth, their families and health care providers that the law passed by the 2023 Montana Legislature is unconstitutional. It will, as the judge sees it, harm the health of transgender kids and youth, rather than protect them from experimental treatments, as the law's supporters have argued.

"Critically, the judge emphasized that the law prohibits treatments for transgender youth that remain permissible for their cisgender counterparts. Treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy are routinely prescribed for cisgender youth for a variety of conditions, including precocious puberty, hypogonadism, PCOS, short stature, among others."