North Dakota Gov. Strikes Down Conservative Bill Restricting Books For Minors
North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong (R) blocked a bill that would have required libraries to put books that feature sexually explicit material in areas that are 'not easily accessible' to minors.
The bill, which would have applied to public libraries and libraries at public schools, also threatens prosecution against those that don't comply.
A two-thirds vote in favor of the bill in both the state's Senate and the House could override Armstrong's veto. But it passed narrowly in both chambers with neither side of the legislature hitting the two-thirds threshold — by a 27–20 vote in the Senate in February and a 49–45 vote in the House earlier this month.
'While I recognize the concerns that led to its introduction, Senate Bill 2307 represents a misguided attempt to legislate morality through overreach and censorship,' Armstrong wrote in a Tuesday letter explaining his decision. 'The bill imposes vague and punitive burdens on professionals and opens the door to a host of unintended and damaging consequences for our communities.'
'In the last 10 years, The Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank, Of Mice and Men, Slaughterhouse-Five, The Kite Runner, 1984, and To Kill a Mockingbird have all been targeted by obscenity laws,' Armstrong added. 'I don't pretend to know what the next literary masterpiece is going to be. But I want it available in the library. And if a parent doesn't think it is age-appropriate for their child, then that is a parenting decision. It does not require a whole-of-government approach and $ 1.1 million of taxpayer money.'
The move comes as many conservatives across the country, including President Donald Trump, attack libraries and academic freedom.
It also follows former North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum's decision in 2023 to veto a bill that threatened criminal prosecution against librarians and aimed to require them to screen all books in the libraries for sexually explicit content. He did, however, sign a bill into law removing books with explicit material from children's sections in libraries.
North Dakota Library Association President Andrea Placher said in a statement that the association was 'very pleased' about Armstrong's veto.
'Libraries in North Dakota are experiencing increasing usage each year, with more visitors, program attendees, and library card registrations,' Placher wrote. 'The North Dakota Library Association firmly believes that SB 2307 is an unnecessary bill that would significantly hinder the operations of libraries in the state. All libraries have established policies and procedures that make this bill irrelevant.'
By contrast, proponents of the bill argue that it is necessary to 'protect' children from pornography.
'We are harming our children, that's all there is to it,' Republican State Sen. Keith Boehm, a sponsor of the bill, argued in a committee hearing, according to The New York Times. 'The bill is all about protecting kids from this material. It has nothing against adults,' he added.
'To fight this battle against the pornographers, pedophiles and groomers, we must cover this issue comprehensively,' Boehm also said in another instance, according to North Dakota Monitor. 'Not every library in the state has this material, but there is enough to support this legislation.'
Rep. Ben Koppelman, another sponsor of the bill, said he is 'confident that most red-state governors would have signed that bill, and we'll just be back next time around to do it again,' according to The Associated Press.
North Dakota Mayor Who Sent Lewd Video To City Attorney Resigns
Supreme Court Signals Support For Religious Parents Against LGBTQ+ Books
Michigan Townspeople Move 9,100 Books To New Home One By One
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The latest GOP push to cut waste and spending: Work requirements
The Trump administration and congressional Republicans are increasingly turning to work requirements as part of a wide-ranging effort to slash spending on welfare benefits - extending GOP messaging around waste and fraud to argue that many people who get federal aid don't deserve it. In late May, the House passed a sweeping tax and budget bill that would impose new work requirements as part of a plan to cut Medicaid. The Agriculture Department is poised to broaden work requirements that already condition access to the nation's largest food assistance program. And the Department of Housing and Urban Development sees work requirements as an 'absolute priority' for rental assistance programs - possibly within President Donald Trump's first year in office - according to an official briefed on the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss plans that aren't finalized. Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. Specific policies could change as the bill heads to the Senate, where multiple Republicans have expressed concerns over work requirements for Medicaid. Yet the proposals reflect a shifting view among Republicans in Washington about who should receive federal benefits. In a New York Times op-ed last month, four top Trump officials overseeing housing, health and food programs wrote that welfare programs were created to help the neediest but have 'deviated from their original mission both by drift and by design.' Even able-bodied adults should look to welfare as a 'short-term hand-up, not a lifetime handout,' wrote Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner. Meanwhile, Republican House leaders are also linking work requirements to broader efforts to root out fraud and abuse, and prevent undocumented immigrants from accessing public benefits. 'There are vulnerable citizens of this country who depend on the safety net,' House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) told The Washington Post last month. 'The safety net is weakened and is less sustainable when you are allowing these monies to go to people or to stakeholders … and used in other ways outside of supporting those who need it, depend on it and qualify for it.' The proposals have drawn sharp criticism from Democrats and left-leaning economists, who argue that work requirements are the wrong tool for this economy. They say the policies risk dropping some of the most vulnerable benefits recipients - such as people who work inconsistent hours, go through bouts of unemployment, struggle with health issues that don't qualify as disabilities or do unpaid work caring for relatives. 'We have never required a 64-year-old single widow who's taking care of her grandchild to work in order to be able to receive SNAP benefits,' said Lauren Bauer, a fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, referring to the food assistance program for low-income families. 'And I guess that's going to change.' Work requirements for benefits programs have been pushed at various times over decades. President Bill Clinton campaigned on a promise to 'end welfare as we know it' and in 1996 worked with the Republican-controlled Congress to overhaul benefits in a landmark law. The measure ended Aid to Families with Dependent Children - which effectively entitled the poorest Americans to federal help - and introduced Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, known more commonly as TANF. The number of people receiving federal welfare payments fell by half in four years, to 6.3 million in 2000. And the past few decades have given rise to debates over whether the changes worked, especially since measures of poverty fluctuate with recessions and other economic forces. The new policies under consideration could be even more far-reaching. Under the Affordable Care Act, adults with low incomes and no children or disabilities qualified for Medicaid for the first time, marking a significant expansion of the safety net insurance program. The new Republican plan would require beneficiaries to spend at least 80 hours a month working, training for a job, in school or volunteering to qualify for Medicaid. In May, Kennedy, the health and human services secretary, told the Senate that the changes would primarily affect people fraudulently receiving benefits and 'able-bodied male workers, males, who refuse to get a job.' Work requirements are meant to reduce the number of people on the program: Roughly a third of the $800 billion in health-care savings in the GOP's sweeping tax bill would come from the work rules, which would result in 4.8 million people becoming uninsured, according to an estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported by The Washington Post's Fact Checker. SNAP, the nation's largest food assistance program, already carries work requirements. Able-bodied adults between 18 and 54 who don't have dependents must work at least 80 hours a month to be eligible. Those who don't qualify can only receive food assistance for three months in a three-year period. People can be exempt because of homelessness, being in foster care or for other reasons, or states can apply for waivers if there aren't enough jobs in a region. Research is split on whether SNAP's existing work requirements have the intended effects. Bauer, the Brookings fellow, cited a 2021 study of Virginia food stamp recipients that found work requirements caused a large decline in SNAP participation without a corresponding boost in employment. The food stamp benefits 'are not binding disincentives against labor force participation for a population that overwhelmingly has no income,' the researchers wrote. Republicans have said current policies allow states to exempt too many people from work requirements. The GOP bill would alter the rules, raising the cutoff age to 64. It also newly subjects parents with dependent children ages 7 or older to work requirements, though a spouse in a two-parent household can still be exempt. The bill would also restrict place-based waivers to counties with an unemployment rate of over 10 percent: a bar many areas receiving waivers would not meet. A CBO analysis estimates the changes would reduce direct spending for SNAP by $92 billion over 10 years and push 3.2 million people out of the program. Work requirements are the 'right policy at the right time' for those in need and will stop able-bodied adults from being 'idle and disengaged,' Rollins, the agriculture secretary, said in a statement. The path for shifting housing policies is less clear. Most of the nation's 3,600 public housing agencies do not have work requirements. But about 140 are part of a narrow program called Moving to Work that gives local authorities room to test a range of rules that are not usually permitted, including those to boost self-sufficiency. Housing authorities, nonprofit groups, property managers and tenants are eager for details on whether work requirements will be mandatory, how many hours of work would be required and who would be exempt. The HUD official briefed on the matter told The Post that 'everything is on the table' and noted that the White House's proposal for a new two-year cap on rental assistance was another way of preventing long-term dependency. In 2024, nearly half of non-elderly, nondisabled households receiving HUD assistance did not include anyone who worked, said the official, citing internal data. Other research differs. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that based on 2022 data, 60 percent of working-age, nondisabled households receiving HUD rental assistance in 2022 included at least one worker. The HUD official said the administration also supports policies that shift power to local authorities and lets them decide which approaches are best. Within the Moving to Work cohort, the official said around 40 public housing agencies already have work requirements, are implementing them or plan to soon, and that such requirements often improve household incomes and employment. Opponents say an increase in work requirements would fall heavily on people who already have a harder time getting work, keeping steady housing or accessing health care. And they say the loss of benefits would be even more extensive given planned cuts to major services. For example, the White House budget proposal would significantly cut rental assistance programs for the fiscal year beginning in October, in part to shift more power to the states. It is unclear whether those cuts would be achieved through work requirements, since HUD's plans are still in flux. That could amount to millions of people losing aid whether they work or not, since many states won't be able to cover those losses. 'What this indicates is that the driver behind this policy isn't this goal of helping people to advance economically,' said Will Fischer, senior fellow and director of housing policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 'The driver is they're trying to cut what they are spending on these programs.' A large share of welfare recipients have jobs. About 32 million people who worked in 2023 got health coverage through Medicaid or food assistance through SNAP, according to a CBPP analysis of census data. In theory, new work requirements shouldn't jeopardize benefits for these recipients. But advocates and left-leaning economists say such requirements do sometimes have that effect - in part because enforcing the rules means enough new administrative burdens that people fall through the cracks. In Georgia, for example, just 12,000 of nearly 250,000 newly eligible recipients received Medicaid after the state implemented work requirements. That was in part because people who worked had a tough time proving it to state officials or their work didn't meet certain qualifications. Finally, those against the policies say even people with jobs sometimes need help making ends meet - so pushing recipients to work wouldn't necessarily solve their household budget problems. Homelessness is worsening among the employed, and inflation often falls hardest on poorer people. At Los Angeles's Downtown Women's Center, which works to end homelessness, regular job training programs are some of the most popular offerings, chief executive Amy Turk said. But even those with jobs need help. A report found that in 2022, nearly 30 percent of homeless women in Los Angeles County were working for pay. Monthly incomes averaged $1,186. In Los Angeles County, though, the average rent is more than $2,000. Analysts at left-leaning think tanks, and some researchers who have studied work requirements, say supporters of the policy have it backward: Health insurance, stable housing and access to food make it possible for people to find work and remain employed. They point to Arkansas, the first state to enact work requirements for Medicaid, as a key example. In 2018, the state implemented its work mandate, which led to 18,000 people losing insurance before a judge in 2019 struck down the requirements in a lawsuit brought by three nonprofits on behalf of some Medicaid recipients. One 40-year-old man lost health coverage after incorrectly reporting the details of his employment and could no longer afford his medication. He suffered complications from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lost his job and struggled to find work again. Others worked odd jobs that did not always allow them to meet the 80-hour-a-month requirement, like a landscaper who struggled to get work in rainy months. 'You cannot conclude that work makes people healthier,' said MaryBeth Musumeci, an associate professor of health policy and management at George Washington University's Milken Institute School of Public Health. 'You need to be physically and mentally healthy enough to work, and particularly for poor people, the types of jobs they are doing can create health problems.' Leaders of Opportunity Arkansas, a conservative policy group, said the state's data shows that most people who lost insurance did so because their incomes rose - exactly the goal of requiring work. 'If Congress is serious about restoring Medicaid as a safety net for the truly needy - not a long-term program for able-bodied adults - then policies that encourage work and self-sufficiency, like the one Arkansas implemented, need to be part of the conversation,' J. Robertson, the organization's public affairs director, said in an email. - - - Jacob Bogage contributed to this report. Related Content Black Democrats fume over 2024 while 'searching for a leader' in 2028 Joy, tension collide as WorldPride arrives in Trump's Washington Kari Lake won awards for overseas reporting. Now she has the job of cutting it.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump pushes for Jack Ciattarelli, saying New Jersey 'ready to pop out of blue horror show'
The Brief Trump implored voters in New Jersey's primary for governor to vote for Republican Jack Ciattarelli. "New Jersey is ready to pop out of that blue horror show," the president said. The president announced his endorsement of Ciattarelli last month. NEW JERSEY - President Donald Trump on Monday implored voters in New Jersey's primary for governor to support Republican Jack Ciattarelli when early in-person voting begins Tuesday and said the state was ready for a change after years of Democratic control. What they're saying The president, who has golf clubs around the state and frequently stays at his Bedminster property, announced his endorsement for Ciattarelli last month. On Monday, Trump held a telephone rally for the candidate, a former state lawmaker who transformed from a critic to vocal backer of the president. The phone call lasted about 10 minutes, with the president saying that voters will decide whether New Jersey remains a "high-tax, high-crime sanctuary state." "New Jersey is ready to pop out of that blue horror show and really get in there and vote for somebody that's going to make things happen," the president said. Dig deeper Trump's call for early voting echoed the pitch he made to voters in the 2024 presidential election. Ciattarelli said his first executive order if elected would be to end any sanctuary policies for immigrants in the country illegally. Currently, the state attorney general has directed local law enforcement not to assist federal agents in civil immigration matters. There is no legal definition for sanctuary city policies, but they generally limit cooperation by local law enforcement with federal immigration officers. Ciattarelli also said the attorney general he appoints if he wins won't be bringing lawsuits against the White House. New Jersey's current attorney general has pursued several high-profile challenges to the president's agenda, including a case challenging Trump's order calling for the end of birthright citizenship. Ciattarelli is running against former radio talk host Bill Spadea, state Sen. Jon Bramnick, former Englewood Cliffs Mayor Mario Kranjac and a southern New Jersey contractor named Justin Barbera. What's next Early in-person voting begins Tuesday and goes through Sunday. Primary day is June 10, though voters have been sending mail-in ballots in since late April. Though the primary isn't over, Ciattarelli hinted at what attacks against his eventual Democratic challenger in the general election might be, saying the party's eight years in the governorship and more than two decades of power in the legislature have been a failure. The Democratic field isn't set. There's a six-way contest between Reps. Josh Gottheimer and Mikie Sherrill; Mayors Ras Baraka of Newark and Steven Fulop of Jersey City; former state Senate President Steve Sweeney; and teacher's union president Sean Spiller. New Jersey tilts Democratic in presidential and Senate elections in particular, and the party has a roughly 800,000 voter registration advantage over Republicans. But independents make up a significant bloc as well, and voters have tended to alternate between Democratic and Republican administrations for governor. The Source Information from this article was provided by the Associated Press.
Hamilton Spectator
26 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Republican push for proof of citizenship to vote proves a tough sell in the states
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans have made it a priority this year to require people to prove citizenship before they can register to vote. Turning that aspiration into reality has proved difficult. Trump's executive order directing a documentary, proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections has been blocked by a judge, while federal legislation to accomplish it doesn't appear to have the votes to pass in the Senate. At the same time, state-level efforts have found little success, even in places where Republicans control the legislature and governor's office. The most recent state effort to falter is in Texas, where a Senate bill failed to gain full legislative approval before lawmakers adjourned on Monday. The Texas bill was one of the nation's most sweeping proof-of-citizenship proposals because it would have applied not only to new registrants but also to the state's roughly 18.6 million registered voters. 'The bill authors failed spectacularly to explain how this bill would be implemented and how it would be able to be implemented without inconveniencing a ton of voters,' said Anthony Gutierrez, director of the voting rights group Common Cause Texas. Voting by noncitizens is already illegal and punishable as a felony, potentially leading to deportation, but Trump and his allies have pressed for a proof-of-citizenship mandate by arguing it would improve public confidence in elections. Before his win last year, Trump falsely claimed noncitizens might vote in large enough numbers to sway the outcome . Although noncitizen voting does occur, research and reviews of state cases has shown it to be rare and more often a mistake. Voting rights groups say the various proposals seeking to require proof-of-citizenship are overly burdensome and threaten to disenfranchise millions of Americans. Many do not have easy access to their birth certificates, have not gotten a U.S. passport or have a name that no longer matches the one on their birth certificate — such as women who changed their last name when they married. The number of states considering bills related to proof of citizenship for voting tripled from 2023 to this year, said Liz Avore, senior policy adviser with the Voting Rights Lab, an advocacy group that tracks election legislation in the states. That hasn't resulted in many new laws, at least so far. Republicans in Wyoming passed their own proof-of-citizenship legislation, but similar measures have stalled or failed in multiple GOP-led states, including Florida, Missouri, Texas and Utah. A proposal remains active in Ohio, although Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, has said he doesn't want to sign any more bills that make it harder to vote. In Texas, the legislation swiftly passed the state Senate after it was introduced in March but never made it to a floor vote in the House. It was unclear why legislation that was such a priority for Senate Republicans – every one of them co-authored the bill — ended up faltering. 'I just think people realized, as flawed as this playbook has been in other states, Texas didn't need to make this mistake,' said Rep. John Bucy, a Democrat who serves as vice chair of the House elections committee. Bucy pointed to specific concerns about married women who changed their last name. This surfaced in local elections earlier this year in New Hampshire , which passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement last year. Other states that previously sought to add such a requirement have faced lawsuits and complications when trying to implement it. In Arizona, a state audit found that problems with the way data was handled had affected the tracking and verification of residents' citizenship status. It came after officials had identified some 200,000 voters who were thought to have provided proof of their citizenship but had not. A proof-of-citizenship requirement was in effect for three years in Kansas before it was overturned by federal courts. The state's own expert estimated that almost all of the roughly 30,000 people who were prevented from registering to vote while it was in effect were U.S. citizens who otherwise had been eligible. In Missouri, legislation seeking to add a proof-of-citizenship requirement cleared a Senate committee but never came to a vote in the Republican-led chamber. Republican state Sen. Ben Brown had promoted the legislation as a follow-up to a constitutional amendment stating that only U.S. citizens can vote, which Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved last November. He said there were several factors that led to the bill not advancing this year. Due to the session's limited schedule, he chose to prioritize another elections bill banning foreign contributions in state ballot measure campaigns. 'Our legislative session ending mid-May means a lot of things die at the finish line because you simply run out of time,' Brown said, noting he also took time to research concerns raised by local election officials and plans to reintroduce the proof-of-citizenship bill next year. The Republican-controlled Legislature in Utah also prioritized other election changes, adding voter ID requirements and requiring people to opt in to receive their ballots in the mail. Before Gov. Spencer Cox signed the bill into law, Utah was the only Republican-controlled state that allowed all elections to be conducted by mail without a need to opt in. Under the Florida bill that has failed to advance, voter registration applications wouldn't be considered valid until state officials had verified citizenship, either by confirming a previous voting history, checking the applicant's status in state and federal databases, or verifying documents they provided. The bill would have required voters to prove their citizenship even when updating their registration to change their address or party affiliation. Its sponsor, Republican state Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka, said it was meant to follow through on Trump's executive order: 'This bill fully answers the president's call,' she said. ___ Cassidy reported from Atlanta. Associated Press writers Mead Gruver in Cheyenne, Wyoming; David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Missouri; Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Florida; Hannah Schoenbaum in Salt Lake City; Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio; and Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Michigan, contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
