North Dakota Gov. Strikes Down Conservative Bill Restricting Books For 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
12 minutes ago
Democratic lawmakers demand information about 'Alligator Alcatraz'
A group of Senate and House Democrats is pushing officials at the Department of Homeland Security for more information about the use of the immigration detention facility in the Florida Everglades known as " Alligator Alcatraz." In a letter sent late Tuesday to the heads of the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and FEMA, the lawmakers expressed concern that the Trump administration's decision to use what lawmakers called a "novel state-run immigration detention model" could violate federal law and make the federal government less accountable for the conditions at immigrant detention centers. The letter comes as the Trump administration has embraced the model of using state-run facilities -- as opposed to federal or private ones -- to detain noncitizens during immigration proceedings, including using a shuttered state prison as an additional site in Florida, dubbed "Deportation Depot," and expanding ICE detention space in an Indiana correctional facility dubbed the "Speedway Slammer" and in a Nebraska facility to be called "Cornhusker Clink." "Experts worry this novel state-run immigration detention model will allow Florida to create an 'independent, unaccountable detention system' that runs parallel to the federal detention system," the group of eight senators and 57 representatives wrote. The "Alligator Alcatraz" detention facility has been the subject of intense political and legal scrutiny since it was rapidly constructed on the site of a rarely used airstrip in the Florida Everglades in June. The temporary detention center -- which currently can house 3,000 migrants awaiting deportation -- was toured by President Donald Trump and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem in early July. "They have a lot of bodyguards and a lot of cops that are in the form of alligators. You don't have to pay them so much." Trump said while touring the facility. "I wouldn't want to run through the Everglades for long." In the letter, spearheaded by Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley and Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the lawmakers asked the Department of Homeland Security to provide more information about the facility by Sept. 3. They asked the Trump administration to identify the legal authority that allows Florida to run the facility, confirm the facility meets federal standards for the treatment of detainees, and outline the criteria used by DHS to reimburse Florida for the facility. "Brushing aside concerns from human rights watchdogs, environmentalist groups, and Tribal nations, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has greenlit the construction of this expansive detention facility that may violate detained individuals' human rights, jeopardize public and environmental health, and violate federal law. We ask that DHS promptly provide critical information for the American public to better understand this detention plan," the Democratic lawmakers wrote. The lawmakers also requested additional information about legal access for detainees at the facility and the environmental impact of the site -- issues that have been at the center of two federal lawsuits challenging the facility. A federal judge has temporarily paused further construction at the site over environmental concerns, and a lawsuit over legal access was partially dismissed after the Trump administration established a nearby immigration court to handle issues stemming from Alligator Alcatraz. A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the letter. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin has previously said the facility complies with federal detention standards. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has lauded "Alligator Alcatraz" as an efficient way for Florida to work with the Trump administration to carry out deportations, and has encouraged other states to do the same. "I know that the administration has called on other states to follow suit and expand this type of capacity, and I would just reiterate that call. I think it's important. I think it will make a difference," DeSantis said at a press conference at the site in July. "The whole purpose is to make this be a place that can facilitate increased frequency and numbers of deportations of illegal aliens." Since "Alligator Alcatraz" opened in July, immigration advocates have been pushing for more information about the facility, arguing that the custodial and operational details were initially kept murky to prevent oversight. According to documents released in an ongoing lawsuit challenging the facility, the Florida Division of Emergency Management and Florida State Guard -- along with private contractors -- are running the site under a 287(g) agreement with the federal government. "While the aliens are in the physical custody of the State, they are for certain legal purposes treated as in the custody of the federal government," an attorney with the Department of Justice wrote in a court filing earlier this month. According to H. Marissa Montes, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, the model used by Alligator Alcatraz allows the federal government to outsource detention facilities to eager states and private contractors. While the federal government has long relied on county jails and for-profit prison companies to house detainees, facilities like "Alligator Alcatraz" expand the scale of individual states' involvement in federal immigration proceedings, Montes said. "Given that DHS is working directly with the Florida state government on a detention facility with alarming implications, DHS should ensure transparency and accountability surrounding the facility's financing operations," the lawmakers wrote in their letter. With Trump vowing to carry out the largest deportation in U.S. history, the use of facilities like "Alligator Alcatraz" contributes to a deterrent effect that encourages self-deportation, according to Montes, who runs Loyola's Immigrant Justice Clinic. "We've got an increased number of people who come in seeking to self-deport because they'd rather self-deport in a way that's dignified, right, than at the hands of the federal government," Montes said.
New York Times
12 minutes ago
- New York Times
What Trump Is Really Up to in Washington
You do not need the strongest powers of observation to see that crime is a pretext — and not the main reason — for the military occupation of Washington, D.C., by federal agents and soldiers from the National Guard. If the president cared about crime, he would push House Republicans to restore the $1 billion Congress cut from the city's budget, so that Washington could fully staff its Metropolitan Police Department and pay for the services and personnel necessary to keep the city safe. He might fill vacancies at the U.S. attorney's office in Washington and on the local Superior Court, to help federal and municipal officials bring cases to fruition. Looking beyond Washington, he might also have kept federal agents assigned to actual criminal cases, rather than move them to immigration enforcement or saddle them with investigations of his political enemies. If the president cared about crime, he would not have pardoned the Jan. 6 rioters, many of whom have gone on to commit violent crimes in their communities. Still, President Trump's obvious indifference to the actual work of preventing criminal victimization has not stopped some professional political observers from defending the occupation of Washington on the grounds that there is crime in the city. 'I have no doubt that Trump enjoys targeting Democratic-controlled cities for embarrassment,' Michael Powell wrote in The Atlantic, conceding that this deployment is pretextual. But, he added, 'I also have little doubt that a mother in Ward 8 might draw comfort from a National Guard soldier standing watch near her child's school.' Ward 8 is a disproportionately low-income area of Washington that covers the southernmost quadrant of the city, where the violent crime rate is significantly higher than it is in other parts of the city. One assumes that there are actual residents of the area you could speak with to understand their view of the situation. There's no reason to ventriloquize an imagined person when there are real ones with thoughts to share. To this point, my newsroom colleague Clyde McGrady spoke to people in Congress Heights, a neighborhood in Ward 8. 'If Trump is genuinely concerned about the safety of D.C. residents,' one resident said, 'I would see National Guard in my neighborhood. I'm not seeing it, and I don't expect to see it. I don't think Trump is bringing in the National Guard to protect Black babies in Southeast.' You won't find the National Guard in any of the city's high crime areas. The vast majority of soldiers and agents deployed to Washington are stationed in the vicinity of the White House and other high-profile sections of the city. There are soldiers patrolling the National Mall; armored vehicles parked at Union Station; and ICE agents manning checkpoints on U Street, an area known for its bars, restaurants and nightlife. They're not there for safety, but for show. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
12 minutes ago
- New York Times
Would You Trust This Man With Your Elections?
With Republicans potentially losing their current seven-vote majority in the House in next year's midterm elections (or, less likely, their six-vote majority in the Senate), President Trump has been sending clear signals of his intent to interfere with the fairness and integrity of those elections. After saying in a social media post on Monday that 'DEMOCRATS … CHEAT AT LEVELS NOT SEEN BEFORE,' he promised to sign a new executive order aimed at 'MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD' in order 'to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 midterms.' Mr. Trump also promised to 'lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN ballots and also, while we're at it, Highly 'Inaccurate,' Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial Voting Machines.' He also claimed that the United States is the only country using mail-in balloting. (In fact, it is used in Canada, Britain and many other countries.) Mr. Trump's claim that 'the States are merely an 'agent' of the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes' is as legally wrong as it is politically dangerous. That can also be said about his plans to issue an executive order interfering with how states run their elections. The fear that Mr. Trump will try to subvert the 2026 elections is real — after all, he tried to overturn the results of the first presidential election he didn't win. But even if Mr. Trump fails to keep the House and the Senate in Republican hands, he will have delegitimized future Democratic victories in the eyes of his MAGA base. Mr. Trump wants his supporters to believe that Democrats can win only by cheating. 'Democrats are virtually Unelectable without using this completely disproven Mail-In SCAM,' he wrote in his Monday post. (Never mind that he raised his claim after he was apparently lectured on the supposed insecurity of mail-in ballots by the noted democracy enthusiast Vladimir Putin.) It's a recipe for further polarization and, as someone in Mr. Trump's orbit told The Times, 'maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time.' It is going to be up to states, the courts and ultimately the American people to stop this further erosion of American democracy. For decades, I argued that the United States should join other modern democracies in having national nonpartisan administration of elections. What we have instead is a hyper-decentralized system that gives states the primary role in running elections, and states in turn give their counties the authority to conduct elections and count ballots. I had thought that the variety of voting rules, machines and personnel was inefficient and particularly dangerous in polarized times, when every local mistake becomes evidence of some claim of a stolen or botched election. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
