Like many Americans, Asher Schor is excited to vote this coming November. Asher was born and raised in Pittsburgh, works at a public interest law firm, and feels more motivated than ever to participate in the electoral process. But Asher is one of thousands of transgender Americans whose driver’s license and passport do not reflect his or her true gender identity. Asher received his photo ID before his transition and the official sex listed still reads “Female.” He recently joined the ACLU of Pennsylvania’s lawsuit against a new and particularly onerous voter ID law, and I had a chance to discuss how the new law will impact him at the polls this November. This LGBT Pride Month, it’s important to examine the ways that voter suppression efforts, like newly-enacted photo ID laws, will have a disproportionately harmful impact on those who are transgender.
In recent years, state houses across the country have passed more laws making casting a ballot increasingly difficult. States have used different tactics in in their efforts to restrict access to the ballot, but many have passed voter identificationlaws. Stopping voter fraud is the posited rationale for these laws. However, voter ID laws across the country impose onerous burdens on many voters to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. There is much more evidence that qualified voters are disfranchised by these measures than there is evidence of in person impersonation fraud – the only type of fraud a voter ID might address.
In some states, voters can only cast a ballot if they display a valid photo identification, from a very short list of acceptable IDs, at their polling place. While the requirement at first glance seems simple, a recent study by the demonstrated the devastating impact these laws will have on minority, voters with disabilities, elderly, young and low-income voters. As many as five million eligible voters face disfranchisement this election cycle. State houses are enacting needlessly restrictive laws that will prevent or discourage millions of Americans from exercising their most basic civil right.
In addition, transgender voters face unique challenges in complying with recent voter ID laws. According to a recent study by the at the UCLA School of Law, over 25,000 otherwise eligible transgender voters could be turned away at their polling places come November. The most pressing problem is the potential discrepancy between a voter’s gender identity and his or her designated sex on state-issued identification. The found over 40 percent of transgender men and women do not have an ID that accurately reflects their gender. Asher is concerned that the discrepancy between his identification documents and his gender identity could lead to confusion and a higher level of needless and potentially embarrassing scrutiny from poll workers. “I am certainly expecting to be scrutinized,” Asher says, “and possibly even accused of having a fake ID.”
Transgender men and women often face difficult hurdles when attempting to change their state-issued documentation to reflect their lived gender. As a paralegal, Asher believes he has a fairly good understanding of the law, but admits changing one’s documentation can be confusing. “It’s a huge process,” he says, “because you have to change everything all at once.” For Asher, the decision to change his documentation is primarily about timing. He says he wants to wait until his physical transition is further along before undertaking the complicated legal process of changing his documentation.
In addition to the bureaucratic and legal hurdles, transgender individuals face discrimination and harassment at staggering levels on a regular basis. The NTDS reported 22 percent of transgender respondents had been denied equal treatment or had experienced harassment by government officials when presenting incongruent ID. “Showing identification is really uncomfortable for me,” Asher said. “There is always that fear when I pull out my ID.” As Asher’s transition continues, he will display more masculine traits, such as facial hair, that will make the process of showing his ID even more uncomfortable. “I’m worried that in order to vote without being discriminated against,” he said, “I’ll have to present at the polls in a way that doesn’t conform with my identity.” No state should force its citizens to make such a choice.
Transgender voters are just one group facing disfranchisement this election. Thousands of transgender voters could be turned away at the polls; untold more will stay home rather than risk discrimination or harassment from polling officials. Asher is still eager to vote, in spite of the potential for harassment. “This law made me really angry that my state would erect more barriers to voting,” he said. “It gave me the kick in the pants I needed to get more involved and excited about voting this fall.”
The stakes could not be higher in this coming election. The injustice facing millions of voters is offensive to the very spirit of democracy. The Supreme Court has described the right to vote as a civil right “of the under our constitutional structure,” since the ability to cast a ballot is “” In other words, voting is the means by which citizens maintain and protect their other rights. With the start of LGBT Pride Month, it’s crucial to recognize that voter suppression is and will continue to be an LGBT issue.
Learn more about LGBT rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.