I sent this piece for to Pam for her edit and review prior to posting this, and it got held up a bit. And, it's was a little bit from when the HRC released the scorecard in question when I wrote this piece -- I wrote the piece about a week or two after the scorecard was released. So, lots of delays posting this for multiple reasons.
So, if this piece doesn't seem as timely as it could be, my apologies. However, Mara Keisling commented about the HRC Scorecard in the exclusive Pam's House Blend video from this past weekend, so I thought this piece was still timely enough to post.
~~A~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's hard for me not to fume a bit over the latest Congressional Scorecard from the HRC. The HRC has for a number of years has identified itself as an LGBT organization,  but prior to the recent November election, the political wing of the organization notably penalized seven congresspeople who voted against the final version of ENDA -- the seven congresspeople who voted against ENDA because that final version of ENDA didn't include gender identity and expression language.
How the HRC penalized the seven members was that the organization lowered their ratings. If a congressperson who voted against ENDA because it didn't include gender identity and expression language, the HRC still counted it as a no vote. Since there were ten congressional votes/issues the HRC tracked for the House, that means the seven congresspeople who supported the T in LGBT more than the HRC did with ENDA received overall scores of 90% instead of 100%.
The HRC knows who the seven are -- in fact, they identified the seven multiple times in their Congressional Scorecard for the 110th Congress. In the cover letter for the Congressional Scorecard, HRC Executive Director Joe Solmonese specifically identified the seven, and said this about the vote and the seven congresspeople:
Although not the vote we hoped for, the ENDA vote was historic. A strong bipartisan majority of 235 members of Congress sent a clear message that employment decisions should be based on job performance, not sexual orientation. In addition, seven members who are strong supporters of the LGBT community - Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Rush Holt (D-N.J.), Michael Michaud (D-Maine), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) and Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) - voted against the bill because they were disappointed that it did not include transgender protections.
And yet, the HRC still lowered the scores of the seven in their report for not supporting the final version of ENDA that didn't include gender identity and expression.  Given as a case in point, the highlighted page included here (select the image to enlarge) shows how Rep. Rush Holt (D) was scored. Rep. Holt was marked as voting against ENDA, and marked down to a score of 90% for voting against ENDA.
Perhaps it should seem pretty strange to progressive LGBT folk that the HRC, an organization that self-identifies as an LGBT civil rights organization, penalized seven congresspeople who showed a greater commitment to fully inclusive civil rights protections than the HRC did during the same timeframe. As my friend and former HRC steering committee member Kathy Padilla characterized the report to me:
[The] HRC found a way to craft a scorecard that only penalizes Democrats who are exceptional on LGBT rights.
Solmonese also said in the cover letter of the report:
A new Congress and a new president will have the opportunity to make even greater progress. The list of unfinished business is long. We need to have a president who signs the Matthew Shepard Act into law. We need to pass a fully inclusive ENDA. We need to repeal DADT. We need expanded funding in our battle against HIV/AIDS. And we need to expand benefits and protections for LGBT families.
I'm not exactly sure how the HRC is demonstrating a commitment to a fully inclusive ENDA. In my mind, the reason the HRC would mark down seven progressive congresspeople would be as a message gauged for the future: You congresspeople better vote our organizational line, or we'll hurt your standing with LGBT voters who use our scorecard as a guide to how LGBT-friendly your votes are going to be in the future.
In other words, it appears to me that the HRC is far more interested in sending a "stay in line with us" message to congresspeople than it is to actually supporting civil rights and protections for all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. In other words, it appears to me that the HRC appeared to want to intentionally damage the reelection prospects of seven progressive, Democratic congresspeople to make a point about keeping in line with their public policy positions -- even when the HRC's public policy positions do not treat gender identity and expression on par with sexual orientation.
So, if the HRC's goal was to send the message to Congress and LGBT people that it fully supports a fully inclusive ENDA, the HRC wouldn't have marked down the scores the seven congresspeople who voted against ENDA because that final version of ENDA didn't include gender identity and expression. But, the HRC did mark these seven congresspeople down; the HRC gave us a flawed scorcard that didn't correctly score seven congresspeople's commitment to full equality.
So, should Congress pass a fully inclusive ENDA during the 111th Congress, I know I wonder whether it will be in spite of the HRC's efforts instead of with the strong efforts of the HRC. And, should a version of ENDA again reach the House Floor that doesn't have gender identity and expression language, how would the HRC score congresspeople who didn't vote for the bill because it wasn't fully inclusive in their 111th Congressional Scorecard?
The HRC's recent record -- a record which includes the Congressional Scorecard for the 110th Congress -- seems to indicate it very well could be a "in spite of" moment with ENDA. And, the HRC is definitely sending the message with its current scorecard that it will again score down congresspeople who don't vote for a version of ENDA that isn't fully inclusive -- if a less than fully inclusive version of ENDA is one the HRC ends up supporting for the the 111th Congress.
I've said it before, I'll say it here again, I don't believe the words that Mr. Solmonese speaks anymore. When Joe Solmonese wrote "We need to pass a fully inclusive ENDA" in the cover letter for the current scorecard, I find myself not believing that he and the HRC actually plan to fully support a fully inclusive ENDA for the 111th Congress.
In my opinion, it's long past time for the HRC to apologize for it's behavior with regards to ENDA and the 110th Congress, it's long past time that the HRC's public policy people put out a statement that they will only support a fully inclusive ENDA; and it's long past time that HRC Executive Director Joe Solmonese resigned -- as long as Mr. Solmonese is the executive director of the HRC, the HRC will have next to zero credibility with progressive LGBT activists. Frankly, I personally don't trust Mr. Solmonese and the HRC to work as equally hard on T issues as he does for G and L issues -- in my opinion, he and the HRC daily make a mockery of their equal sign logo due to their still ongoing ENDA related behavior.
And lastly, the HRC should immediately correct their flawed scorecard for the 110th Congress.
I'm sure I'm going to be seen as an HRC basher for posting this diary, and yet I don't think of myself as one. I have very high regard for what the HRC's CEI has done for gender variant people; I believe the HRC's foundations do tremendous work. My issues with the HRC specifically are with their political folks, and specifically with their behavior regarding public policy on LGBT-related federal legislation. I would rather have them on my side than against me, but at this point I consider the HRC to be more against me as a trans woman than for me.
[Below the fold: Rep. Tammy Baldwin comments on a fully inclusive ENDA for the 111th Congress, and a link to comments on the HRC's Allyson Robinson's interview of the HRC's Allyson Hewitt.] |
