Massachusetts Votes to Uphold Protections for Transgender People in Public Places

Question 3 passes with about two-thirds support.

Transgender advocate and actress Laverne Cox meets with Ashton, a transgender teenager, in Boston.Josh Reynolds/AP Images for Human Rights Campaign

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

A majority of Massachusetts voters chose to uphold legal protections for transgender people on today, preventing a rollback of a law that bans discrimination against trans people in public accommodations such as restrooms and locker rooms. Two-thirds of voters checked “yes” on Question 3, expressing their support for the current law.   

“From the very early days of our campaign, we have been clear that this is about dignity and respect for all people,” Kasey Suffredini, cochair of the LGBTQ rights coalition Freedom for All Massachusetts, said in a press release. “Together, we have shattered broken stereotypes of what it means to be transgender and debunked the myth—once and for all—that protecting transgender people compromises the safety of others.”

If the No side had prevailed, Question 3 would have repealed a 2016 law that established anti-discrimination protections for transgender Bay Staters. Its backers began working to get the question on the ballot in the summer of 2016, citing baseless fears that the trans-rights law would put women and children at risk of being targeted by sexual predators.

A late push by high-profile celebrities and a variety of advocacy groups including the American Civil Liberties Union may have helped swing voters, whom pollsters and activists worried would be confused by the ballot initiative’s counterintuitive wording. “I truly believe that this is one of the most pivotal moments in the trans legal, political movement of this decade,” Chase Strangio, an ACLU staff attorney and transgender rights activist, told the Intercept.

Actress Laverne Cox also campaigned aggressively for Yes on 3. On October 24, Cox spoke at a rally in downtown Boston, urging voters to “choose love” as they headed to the polls. “Massachusetts has an opportunity to send a message to this administration, has an opportunity to send a message to the rest of the country that this is not who we are as Americans, that this is not who we are as human beings, that we respect the humanity of everyone,” she said. 


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend