Latest news with #SenateBill2307
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The First Amendment was upheld in 2025 session, but the debate continues
(Stock photo by) Their intentions were good. Shielding kids from so-called 'sexually explicit' materials. Ensuring our children's education is aligned with values that uphold morality. Permitting chaplains to fill the gaps for mental health support at our public schools. Let's think about the children, they said. Let's protect the children! But good intentions don't always equate to good legislation, as we saw during the 2025 legislative session with bill after bill that pushed ideological principles, imposed Christian doctrines and would have done little more than chip away at our First Amendment rights. Since the First Amendment was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, these 45 words have been integral to democracy. It protects our fundamental rights to free expression and speech, to practice religion or no religion at all, and to protest our government, among other rights. Upholding these rights is the sworn responsibility of our elected leaders. But the culture warriors among our state legislative assembly seemed wholly unconcerned. And that's extremely alarming! Take Senate Bill 2307, for example. Legislators narrowly passed this bill that sparked contentious debate in committee hearings and on the legislative floor, with much of the discussion focused on fears that children might discover library books featuring teenagers in same-sex relationships or depicting families with two dads or two moms. If community members don't want to engage with certain ideas or topics – or let their kids engage with certain ideas or topics – they don't have to. Substituting state control for parental judgement is not the answer. In fact, that's censorship. And once you allow the government to censor someone else, you're also giving the government the power to censor you or something you like later. Similarly, religious freedom was up for debate this year, too. Not long ago, religious freedom was largely viewed across the ideological and political spectrum as a bedrock value of American democracy that transcended partisan agendas. Every individual and family — not politicians or the government — get to decide for themselves what religious beliefs, if any, they adopt and practice. But in statehouses across the county, religious freedom debates are now at the epicenter of the culture wars as some believe certain Christian ideals should be reflected in political decisions. North Dakota lawmakers attempted to require public schools to post prescribed copies of the Ten Commandments in public school and university classrooms and other school spaces with House Bill 1145 and they wanted to encourage local school districts to allow taxpayer-funded chaplains in our public schools with House Bill 1456. As enshrined in the First Amendment, however, religious freedom includes two complementary protections: the right to religious belief and expression and a guarantee that the government neither prefers religion over non-religion nor favors particular faiths over others. These dual protections are supposed to work hand in hand, allowing religious liberty to thrive and safeguarding both religion and government from the influences of the other. The ACLU's opposition to these bills doesn't mean we don't believe protecting children or ensuring their education is guided by strong moral values isn't important. It's just that parents already have the right and ability to do so. And what's right for one family may not be right for another. That's not up for someone else to decide. Fortunately, Gov. Kelly Armstrong vetoed Senate Bill 2307, and an attempt to override the veto failed. House Bills 1145 and 1456 failed, too. Protecting our First Amendment rights like this is essential for a vibrant and open society where individuals can express themselves freely, hold the government accountable and participate in the democratic process. But just because the 2025 legislative session is over doesn't mean the fight for our First Amendment rights in North Dakota is over. Far from it. The state legislature isn't the only place these debates are happening. We're seeing similar efforts at local community library boards, school boards and city councils across the state, too. You can bet the culture warriors among our legislative body will try again during the 2027 session, too. We know that attacks on our First Amendment rights won't stop – and the American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota is prepared to continue the fight.
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
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
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
North Dakota governor vetoes controversial library content bill
A protester displays a sign along Boulevard Avenue near the North Dakota Capitol in Bismarck as part of the national No Kings protests on April 19, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong vetoed a library content bill, calling it 'a misguided attempt to legislate morality through overreach and censorship.' The Republican said in a veto message Wednesday that Senate Bill 2307 is redundant with legislation approved two years ago and is overly burdensome for librarians, school districts and state's attorneys. 'The bill imposes vague and punitive burdens on professionals and opens the door to a host of unintended and damaging consequences for our communities,' Armstrong said. The bill narrowly passed the Senate and the House, making it unlikely that lawmakers would have enough votes to override the veto. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Keith Boehm, R-Mandan, sought to require school and public libraries to remove content deemed 'sexually explicit' to areas not easily accessible to children. It also proposed that local state's attorneys would investigate and prosecute violations, and state funds could be withheld from schools or libraries in violation. The state estimated it would cost $2 million in the first four years to implement the bill by adding an age-verification system for an online database used by North Dakota libraries. Local state's attorneys and libraries would likely see additional costs, according to testimony on the bill. Armstrong called the process in the bill 'completely unworkable.' He raised concerns about books such as 'The Diary of a Young Girl' by Anne Frank, 'The Kite Runner' and '1984' as other books that have been targeted by obscenity laws. 'I don't pretend to know what the next literary masterpiece is going to be,' Armstrong wrote. 'But I know that I want it available in a library.' About 1,000 people participated in silent protests at 17 libraries around the state in March to show their opposition to the bill. More than 2,000 people sent Armstrong messages urging him to veto the bill through an action alert by Right to Read ND, a nonpartisan group that opposed the bill. The group argued that the bill is unnecessary, expensive and violates First Amendment rights. 'This veto protects teachers and librarians in North Dakota from frivolous lawsuits and ensures they can continue to provide quality library services to their local communities,' said Randi Monley and Mariah Ralston, Right to Read ND co-chairs, in a joint statement. 'We hope the North Dakota Legislature will also listen to their constituents' concerns and sustain the governor's veto.' Opponents also said libraries already have local review processes for content that is challenged. During hearings on the bill, supporters pointed to examples of books that were challenged at local libraries but not removed. Rep. Mike Brandenburg, R-Edgeley, said his constituents wanted lawmakers to take action on library content, citing a book from the 'Heartstopper' LGBTQ+ graphic novel series that some parents objected to in the Forman school library. Former Gov. Doug Burgum vetoed a similar library content bill in the 2023 legislative session, but signed another one that required sexually explicit content to be removed from children's sections. Lawmakers would need 32 votes in the Senate and 63 votes in the House to override Armstrong's veto. The bill passed on a 27-20 vote in the Senate and 49-45 vote in the House. SB 2307 veto message signed
Yahoo
15-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Library content bill narrowly passes North Dakota House
Rep. Bernie Satrom, R-Jamestown, speaks on the House floor on April 14, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) A bill requiring school and public libraries to relocate content deemed 'sexually explicit' passed the House on a 49-45 vote Monday after nearly 90 minutes of debate. Senate Bill 2307, sponsored by Sen. Keith Boehm, R-Mandan, would allow people who challenge library content to seek a state's attorney's opinion if they don't agree with a local content review process. If the content is deemed obscene by the state's attorney and not removed, state funding to the library or school could be withheld. The bill also allows a state's attorney to prosecute violations, though it's not clear who would be prosecuted. Implementing the bill is estimated to cost $1.1 million for 2025-27, or $2 million over the next four years, to add an age verification system for the state's online library database. Rep. Eric Murphy, R-Grand Forks, who voted against the bill, said the bill's fiscal note doesn't address the costs that will be added to county state's attorney's offices. Committee recommends 'do not pass' on controversial North Dakota library content bill 'The cost of this was not determined and, of course, was a concern for the (Appropriations) Committee,' Murphy said. Other critics of the bill have said there will be additional costs for local libraries to implement it. The House Appropriations Committee issued a do-not-pass recommendation for the bill on a 22-1 vote Friday. Rep. Bernie Satrom, R-Jamestown, who voted in favor of the bill, said the $1.1 million in costs for the age verification was a small price to pay to ensure that obscene content is kept from children. He said he found it odd the House Judiciary Committee voted 12-1 to recommend passage of the bill while the House Appropriations Committee came to the opposite result. Many comments from lawmakers referred to some library content as pornography. 'By passing this bill, we affirm that taxpayer dollars should never be used to purchase pornography,' said Rep. Kathy Frelich, R-Devils Lake. One book lawmakers objected to was the 'Heartstopper' LGBTQ graphic novel series that had been challenged at the Forman school library. The bill sponsor also distributed a list of the American Library Association's top challenged books, along with a list of which North Dakota libraries carried them. Many of the books have LGBTQ themes or discuss sexual assault. In a statement, the ACLU of North Dakota said the bill amounts to censorship and questioned who will decide what is considered obscene or sexually explicit. 'Government officials cannot impose their personal moral values on others,' Cody Schuler, ACLU of North Dakota advocacy manager, said in a statement. 'If you don't like a book, don't read it – or don't let your kids read it. It's as simple as that.' Barring a reconsideration of Monday's House vote, the bill will be sent to Gov. Kelly Armstrong for his consideration. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
15-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Library content bill narrowly passes North Dakota House
Rep. Bernie Satrom, R-Jamestown, speaks on the House floor on April 14, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) A bill requiring school and public libraries to relocate content deemed 'sexually explicit' passed the House on a 49-45 vote Monday after nearly 90 minutes of debate. Senate Bill 2307, sponsored by Sen. Keith Boehm, R-Mandan, would allow people who challenge library content to seek a state's attorney's opinion if they don't agree with a local content review process. If the content is deemed obscene by the state's attorney and not removed, state funding to the library or school could be withheld. The bill also allows a state's attorney to prosecute violations, though it's not clear who would be prosecuted. Implementing the bill is estimated to cost $1.1 million for 2025-27, or $2 million over the next four years, to add an age verification system for the state's online library database. Rep. Eric Murphy, R-Grand Forks, who voted against the bill, said the bill's fiscal note doesn't address the costs that will be added to county state's attorney's offices. Committee recommends 'do not pass' on controversial North Dakota library content bill 'The cost of this was not determined and, of course, was a concern for the (Appropriations) Committee,' Murphy said. Other critics of the bill have said there will be additional costs for local libraries to implement it. The House Appropriations Committee issued a do-not-pass recommendation for the bill on a 22-1 vote Friday. Rep. Bernie Satrom, R-Jamestown, who voted in favor of the bill, said the $1.1 million in costs for the age verification was a small price to pay to ensure that obscene content is kept from children. He said he found it odd the House Judiciary Committee voted 12-1 to recommend passage of the bill while the House Appropriations Committee came to the opposite result. Many comments from lawmakers referred to some library content as pornography. 'By passing this bill, we affirm that taxpayer dollars should never be used to purchase pornography,' said Rep. Kathy Frelich, R-Devils Lake. One book lawmakers objected to was the 'Heartstopper' LGBTQ graphic novel series that had been challenged at the Forman school library. The bill sponsor also distributed a list of the American Library Association's top challenged books, along with a list of which North Dakota libraries carried them. Many of the books have LGBTQ themes or discuss sexual assault. In a statement, the ACLU of North Dakota said the bill amounts to censorship and questioned who will decide what is considered obscene or sexually explicit. 'Government officials cannot impose their personal moral values on others,' Cody Schuler, ACLU of North Dakota advocacy manager, said in a statement. 'If you don't like a book, don't read it – or don't let your kids read it. It's as simple as that.' Barring a reconsideration of Monday's House vote, the bill will be sent to Gov. Kelly Armstrong for his consideration. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
