Texas House Votes to Repeal ‘Homosexual Conduct' Ban
On Thursday, lawmakers voted 72-55 to give first approval to House Bill 1738.
In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas' law criminalizing gay sex in a landmark decision in Lawrence v. Texas. But anti-sodomy laws remain on the books in Texas and other states.
These laws could become enforceable if the high court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, overturned its decision in Lawrence-the way laws banning abortion became enforceable after the court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has said the court should review other precedents, including Lawrence and the court's 2015 decision legalizing same-sex marriage.
State Representative Venton Jones, a gay man and Texas' first openly HIV-positive lawmaker, said on the House floor on Thursday that repealing the law was "common sense governance."
"Despite the clear precedent that the Lawrence v. Texas [decision] set over two decades ago, this outdated and unenforceable language remains in our penal code," he said.
Jones added: "I'm not asking you to vote based on whether or not you agree with the Lawrence v. Texas ruling. Instead, I'm asking you to vote on a law that strengthens the fundamental civil liberties and individual freedoms that all Texans deserve.
"I'm asking you to vote for a law that upholds the principles that Texans should have the freedom and ability to make their own private decisions without unwarranted government interference."
The bill's sponsors included some of the chamber's most progressive and most conservative lawmakers. Sponsors and cosponsors included three Democrats-Jones, Joe Moody and Ann Johnson-and Republicans Brian Harrison and Dade Phelan.
Newsweek has contacted the lawmakers for comment via email.
Democratic state Representative Venton Jones told The Dallas Morning News after Thursday's vote: "It was a great feeling. I think it gave a little bit of hope. When you have a lot of really long and bad days in this chamber, it's nice when we can come together and get something right."
Republican state Representative Brian Harrison said in a statement to the Texas Tribune: "Criminalizing homosexuality is not the role of government, and I support repealing it."
Jonathan Covey, the director of policy for Texas Values, said in opposition to the measure, per the Morning News: "Some laws don't need to be enforceable to serve a purpose. They are declarative and persuasive, and that's what this bill does for those who read about it or know about it. It warns that this conduct is not acceptable."
Thursday's House vote was the furthest the effort to repeal the ban has gone in the Texas Legislature. House Bill 1738 is expected to pass a final vote on Friday before advancing to the Texas Senate, according to the Tribune.
Related Articles
Supreme Court Unanimously Rules to Reopen Texas Civil Rights LawsuitDemocrat Edges Out Leading Republican in Texas Senate Race-GOP PollDeadline to Protest Property Taxes in Texas: Here's What to KnowTexas is Hotter Than the Hottest Place on Earth
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive-Judge in US crosshairs warns Brazil banks not to apply sanctions locally
By Ricardo Brito and Brad Haynes BRASILIA (Reuters) -Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who recently had sanctions imposed on him by the U.S. government, told Reuters that courts could punish Brazilian financial institutions for seizing or blocking domestic assets in response to U.S. orders. Those remarks raise the stakes in a standoff that has hammered shares of Brazilian banks caught between U.S. sanctions and the orders of Brazil's highest court. In a late Tuesday interview from his office in Brasilia, Moraes granted that U.S. law enforcement regarding Brazilian banks that operate in the United States "falls under U.S. jurisdiction." "However, if those banks choose to apply that law domestically, they cannot do so — and may be penalized under Brazilian law," he added. His remarks underscore the potential consequences of a Monday ruling by fellow Supreme Court Justice Flavio Dino, who warned that foreign laws cannot be automatically applied in Brazil. That ruling was followed by a sharp rebuke from the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, which warned on social media hours later that Moraes was "toxic" and that "non-U.S. persons must tread carefully: those providing material support to human rights abusers face sanctions risk themselves." The U.S. Treasury Department slapped the sanctions on Moraes last month under the Global Magnitsky Act, a law designed to impose economic penalties on foreigners deemed to have a record of corruption or human rights abuse. The order accused him of suppressing freedom of expression and leading politicized prosecutions, including against former President Jair Bolsonaro, a staunch Trump ally on trial before Brazil's Supreme Court on charges of plotting a coup to reverse his loss in the 2022 election. Bolsonaro has denied any wrongdoing and denounced the case as politically motivated. In his interview, Moraes said decisions by foreign courts and governments can only take effect in Brazil after validation through a domestic process. He said it is therefore not possible to seize assets, freeze funds or block the property of Brazilian citizens without following those legal steps. The global reach of the U.S. financial system means foreign banks often restrict a wider range of transactions to avoid secondary sanctions. Moraes said he was confident that the sanctions against him would be reversed via diplomatic channels or an eventual challenge in U.S. courts. But he acknowledged that for now they had put financial institutions in a bind. "This misuse of legal enforcement places financial institutions in a difficult position — not only Brazilian banks, but also their American partners," he said. "That is precisely why, I repeat, the diplomatic channel is important so this can be resolved quickly - to prevent misuse of a law that is important to fight terrorism, criminal organizations, international drug trafficking and human trafficking," he added. The U.S. State Department did not immediately respond to request for comment. Moraes had "engaged in serious human rights abuse," said a Treasury Department spokesperson. "Rather than concocting a fantasy fiction, de Moraes should stop carrying out arbitrary detentions and politicized prosecutions." NO CHOICE The clash could have serious consequences for Brazilian financial institutions, said two bankers in Brazil, who requested anonymity to discuss the matter candidly. Most large banks are supervised by the U.S. government in some way due to their international presence or exposure, either through a foreign branch or issuance of foreign securities, said the former director of an international bank in Brazil. The choice for these banks, under pressure from the U.S., may be to invite sanctioned clients to seek a different institution to keep their assets, the banker added. The director of a major Brazilian bank said that, in practice, Monday's court ruling means any action taken by Brazilian banks based on rules involving the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, which oversees U.S. sanctions, will need approval from Brazil's Supreme Court. At the same time, he added, failing to comply with an OFAC decision could cut a bank off from the international financial system. "Brazil doesn't really have a choice," said the banker. "Given how interconnected everything is, and the disparity in economic power between the U.S. and Brazil, we're left in a position of subordination. There's not much we can do." He stressed that the court would need to come up with a solution "that doesn't put the financial system at risk." Shares of state-run lender Banco do Brasil, where most federal officials including judges receive salaries, fell 6% on Tuesday, the largest drop among Brazil's three biggest banks. The bank said in a Tuesday statement it was prepared to deal with "complex, sensitive" issues involving global regulations. Sign in to access your portfolio
New York Post
4 minutes ago
- New York Post
Democrats facing crisis as more than 2M voters leave party in four years: analysis
The Democratic Party is bleeding registered voters, suffering a 4.5 million swing against it that could take years to recover from, according to a new report. Between the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections, Democrats lost about 2.1 million voters across the 30 states that track registration by political party, according to a New York Times analysis of data gathered by the L2 tracking firm. Over the same period, the Republican Party gained 2.4 million registered voters. Officially, there are still more registered Democrats than Republicans nationwide, but that number is incomplete because blue states like California and New York allow voters to register by party — as does the District of Columbia — while reliably red states like Texas, Missouri and Ohio do not. Most alarmingly for Democrats, the decline is nationwide, with the US seeing more new voters registering with the GOP in 2024 for the first time in six years. Democrats also saw their registered voter advantage dwindle in four 2024 battleground states — Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina and Pennsylvania — all of which President Trump carried this past Nov. 5. Democrats lost about 2.1 million registered voters in the 30 states that track registration by political party. AP Michael Pruser, who tracks voter registration closely as the director of data science for Decision Desk HQ, warned that the numbers not only help explain Trump's victory last year — in which he became the first Republican presidential candidate to win the popular vote in 20 years — but also forecast significant headwinds for Democrats in next year's midterm elections as well as the 2028 presidential vote. 'I don't want to say, 'The death cycle of the Democratic Party,'' Pruser told the Times, 'but there seems to be no end to this.' 'There is no silver lining or cavalry coming across the hill. This is month after month, year after year,' he added. In North Carolina, Democrats lost 115,523 voters between the 2020 and 2024 election, with Republicans gaining more than 140,000 members and erasing the Dems' registration advantage, according to the L2 data. More new voters registered to be Republican than Democrat last year, the first time since 2018. Michael Nagle Democrats suffered similar losses in Arizona and Pennsylvania, while in Nevada — a state whose politics were long dominated by the Las Vegas-based Culinary Workers Union — the share of registered Democrats suffered the second-steepest plunge of those states measured between 2020 and 2024. (Only deep-red West Virginia saw more precipitous losses.). Even Democratic bastions like New York and California were not safe from voter erosion, with Dems losing 305,922 registered voters in the Empire State in between the two elections. In California, Democrats lost 680,556 voters between 2020 and 2024. All in all, Democrats went from enjoying an advantage of nearly 11 percentage points over Republicans in registered voter numbers in 2020 to just over six percentage points across the 30 states and DC in 2024, the Times found. Experts believe that the fall of new Democratic registrations can be linked to the growing number of voters choosing to be independents or unaffiliated, a trend that is sapping both parties' rolls. In 2018, more than one-third (34%) of new voter registrations nationwide were Democrats, while registered Republicans made up just 20% of new voters. As of last year, however, Republicans had erased that gap, with party supporters making up 29% of new voters, while Democrats made up 26% of new voters.
Newsweek
4 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Gavin Newsom's Redistricting Ballot Measure Chances of Passing—New Poll
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. California Governor Gavin Newsom's redistricting ballot measure has support from a majority of the state's voters, according to a new poll. Newsweek reached out to Newsom and the California GOP for comment via email. Why It Matters The redistricting arms race between California, Texas and other states could have key implications for the midterms. Texas, with the support of President Donald Trump, first announced plans to redraw its map to become more favorable to Republicans and thwart losses in the midterms, but Newsom has warned California could redraw its map to benefit Democrats in return. California Democrats' ability to do so may hinge on the outcome of a ballot measure Newsom announced last week that would allow a new map drafted by legislators to temporarily replace the boundaries drawn up by the state's independent redistricting committee following the 2020 census. If the ballot measure is successful, it could neutralize efforts from Texas Republicans. But if it fails, Republicans may be able to net several seats in not only Texas, but also other GOP states like Indiana and Missouri. What to Know A new poll from Newsom's pollster, reported by Axios, suggests a majority of voters are prepared to support the ballot measure. The poll, conducted by David Binder, showed that 57 percent of California voters are in support of the proposal. Only 35 percent were opposed to it, while 8 percent remained undecided. Among Democrats, the ballot measure had 84 percent support, while only 13 percent opposed it. Among Republicans, 79 percent were opposed, the poll found, according to Axios. California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks during a press conference in Los Angeles on August 14, 2025. California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks during a press conference in Los Angeles on August 14, poll surveyed 1,000 likely voters from August 10 to August 14, 2025, and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. California remains a solidly blue state where Democrats handily outnumber Republicans. Former Vice President Kamala Harris carried it by 20 points last November, so Democrats are hopeful this ballot measure will fall on partisan lines. But the state has an independent redistricting community that was passed by voters and remains popular. A Politico poll released last week found that 64 percent of California voters support keeping the commission, while only 36 percent support returning redistricting authority to the state legislature. Newsom, who is viewed as a potential 2028 presidential candidate, has cast the ballot measure as a temporary measure, which would no longer be in effect after the 2030 census, which is only in response to Texas' redistricting efforts. It would not go into effect unless Texas or other Republican states first redraw their lines. Republicans, however, have described it as a power grab that violates the will of Californians. What People Are Saying David Binder wrote in the poll, per Axios: "Voter trends on this measure closely mirror the presidential election results of November 2024, in which Kamala Harris defeated Donald Trump in California by 58% to 38%. Poll results indicate that Proposition 50 will fall along similar partisan lines." Representative Kevin Kiley, a California Republican, wrote to X on Tuesday: "Newsom is overthrowing the Redistricting Commission in order to make California 'a whole lot bluer.' To accomplish this, his proposal expressly overrides the entire State Constitution. Partisan gerrymandering will become the supreme law of the land." Governor Newsom wrote to X on Tuesday: "Unlike Texas, we're not following @realDonaldTrump's orders to quietly try to redistrict our way out of losing the next election. In California, we're working transparently to respond if Texas enacts new maps — and we'll give the power to the people to make our final decision." What Happens Next Voters will make their decision about the redistricting plan in November. Both Democrats and Republicans will spend the coming months making their case to voters on whether the ballot measure should pass. Meanwhile, the redistricting war continues across the country, with Trump urging Texas Republicans to pass their plan "ASAP."
