Michelle Lujan-Grisham on Civil Rights

Study social distancing practices while protecting privacy

If there was anything that we thought was breaching already robust federal or state laws protecting privacy, A, we wouldn't have a relationship and, B, we would do the appropriate accountability. But they're just using aggregate data. We don't have any idea who any of the cell phone numbers belong to. It is a very useful tool to get a sense about how social distancing works and what the benefits of that are.

Supports marriage equality

Michelle Lujan-Grisham (D): Yes. Supported NM marriage equality before Supreme Court ruling.

Steve Pearce (R): No. Personally opposes, voted against, but now settled law.

Legal equality regardless of sexual orientation

I was an early advocate for the Hate Crimes Act and spearheaded efforts to recognize same-sex partners as legally qualified to make medical and healthcare decisions for their partners. New Mexico was the first state to include the provision in state law.

Advocate for elder rights and women's rights

In my work with elders and families, there has always been an emphasis on the specific impact and issues of women, since there is a higher percentage of women over age 65; and women are at a particular financial disadvantage in regards to benefits and consumer issues.

Opposes a DOMA amendment.

Christian Coalition publishes a number of special voter educational materials including the Christian Coalition Voter Guides, which provide voters with critical information about where candidates stand on important faith and family issues. The Christian Coalition Voters Guide summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "U.S. Constitutional Amendment to prohibit same sex marriage"

Endorsed by The Feminist Majority indicating a pro-women's rights stance.

The Feminist Majority endorses candidates for the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. In addition to the stronger `endorsement,` the organization also determines `preferred` candidates in races where they do not endorse. Their mission statement:

`Our mission is to empower feminists, who are the majority, and to win equality for women at the decision-making tables of the state, nation, and the world. The Feminist Majority promotes non-discrimination on the basis of sex, race, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, religion, ethnicity, age, marital status, nation of origin, size or disability. The purpose of Feminist Majority is to promote equality for women and men, non-violence, reproductive health, peace, social justice and economic development and to enhance feminist participation in public policy. Feminist Majority supports workers’ collective bargaining, pay equity, and end of sweatshops. We encourage programs directed at the preservation of the environment.`

Supports same-sex marriage.

Project Vote Smart infers candidate issue stances on key topics by summarizing public speeches and public statements. Congressional candidates are given the opportunity to respond in detail; about 11% did so in the 2012 races.

Project Vote Smart summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'Marriage: Do you support same-sex marriage?'

Enforce against anti-gay discrimination in public schools.

Congressional Summary:

• Prohibits public school students from being excluded from participating in, or subject to discrimination under, any federally-assisted educational program on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or that of their associates.
• Considers harassment to be a form of discrimination.
• Prohibits retaliation against anyone for opposing conduct made unlawful under this Act.
• Authorizes federal departments and agencies to enforce these prohibitions by cutting off the educational assistance of recipients found to be violating them.
• Allows an aggrieved individual to assert a violation of this Act in a judicial proceeding and recover reasonable attorney`s fees should they prevail.

  Opponent`s argument against bill:(by Cato Institute reported on Fox News): A bill in Congress that would prohibit discrimination in public schools based on sexual orientation or gender identity could stifle free speech and even lead to `homosexual indoctrination` in the nation`s classrooms, critics say.

  `The real danger is how this will be interpreted,` said the associate director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute. `The definition of harassment could be broadly interpreted that anybody who expressed a totally legitimate opinion about homosexual behavior could be made illegal. That`s a violation of those kids who want to express opposition to LGBT opinions or behavior. People have a legitimate reason to be concerned about this--not because they`re `haters` but because you`re now trying to balance different rights.`

  Proponent`s argument for bill: (Rep. Jared POLIS, House sponsor): `Hatred has no place in the classroom. Every student has the right to an education free from harassment and violence. This bill will protect the freedoms of our students and enshrine the values of equality and opportunity in the classroom.`

  Source: H.R.1652 / S.1088 13-H1652 on Jul 8, 2013

  Sponsored removing deadline for ratification of the ERA.

  Lujan Grisham co-sponsored Resolution on ERA

  Congressional Summary:Eliminates the time limit for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA, which prohibits discrimination on account of sex) proposed to the states in 1972. Declares that such amendment shall be part of the Constitution whenever ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the several states.

  OnTheIssues explanation:The ERA was originally passed with a deadline of 1979, then extended to 1982. TK states ratified the ERA before that deadline, TK short of the TK required. Hence the ERA failed. The amendment states: `Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.`

  Opponent`s argument against bill:(Editorial in L.A. Times by Phyllis Schlafly, president of Eagle Forum, April 8, 2007)

  The ERA was first introduced in Congress in 1923. For nearly 50 years, all subsequent Congresses had the good judgment to leave it buried in committee. In 1971, the women`s liberation movement demanded a gender-neutral society in which men and women would be treated exactly the same, no matter how reasonable it might be to respect differences between them. Our Stop ERA campaign, over the next 10 years,

  Source: S.J.RES.15 & H.J.RES.43 13-HJR43 on May 9, 2013

  Enforce against wage discrimination based on gender.

  Lujan Grisham co-sponsored Paycheck Fairness Act
  Congress finds the following:
  1. Women have entered the workforce in record numbers over the past 50 years.
  2. Despite the enactment of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, many women continue to earn significantly lower pay than men for equal work. These pay disparities exist in both the private and governmental sectors. In many instances, the pay disparities can only be due to continued intentional discrimination or the lingering effects of past discrimination.
  3. The existence of such pay disparities depresses the wages of working families who rely on the wages of all members of the family to make ends meet; and undermines women`s retirement security.
  4. Artificial barriers to the elimination of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex continue to exist decades after the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. These barriers have resulted because the Equal Pay Act has not worked as Congress originally intended.
  5. The Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have important and unique responsibilities to help ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work.
  6. The Department of Labor is responsible for investigating and prosecuting equal pay violations, especially systemic violations, and in enforcing all of its mandates.
  7. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the primary enforcement agency for claims made under the Equal Pay Act.
  8. With a stronger commitment [to enforcement], increased information on wage data and more effective remedies, women will be better able to recognize and enforce their rights.
  9. Certain employers have already made great strides in eradicating unfair pay disparities in the workplace and their achievements should be recognized.
  Source: S.84&H.R.377 13-HR0377 on Jan 23, 2013

  Don't elevate gender identity as a protected class.

  Lujan Grisham voted YEA H.Amdt. 1128 to H.R. 5055

  Heritage Action Summary: The Maloney Amendment would ratify President Obama`s 2014 executive order barring federal contractors from what it describes as `discrimination` on the basis of `sexual orientation and gender identity` in their private employment policies. In practice, it would have required federal contractors to grant biologically male employees who identify as women unfettered access to women`s lockers, showers, and bathrooms.

  Heritage Foundation recommendation to vote NO: (5/25/2016): Congress should not be elevating sexual orientation and gender identity as a protected class garnering special legal privileges, which is the intent of the Maloney Amendment. The Maloney Amendment constitutes bad policy that unnecessarily regulates businesses. It risks undoing longstanding protections in civil rights law and makes clear that the president`s orders are not exempt from them.

  ACLU recommendation to vote YES: (5/11/2016): We see today claims to a right to discriminate--by refusing to provide services to LGBT people--based on religious objections. Claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion is not new. In the 1960s, we saw objections to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It`s no different today.

  Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to impose those beliefs on others.

  Legislative outcome: Amendment passed by the House 223-195-15 4/26/16; overall bill H.R.5055 failed 112-305-16 on 5/26/2016

  Source: Congressional vote 16-H5055 on May 25, 2016

  Click here for definitions & background information on Civil Rights. Click here for a summary of all issue stances of Michelle Lujan-Grisham. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Michelle Lujan-Grisham. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Michelle Lujan-Grisham. Click here for VoteMatch responses by Michelle Lujan-Grisham. Click here for issue positions of other NM politicians. Click here for NM primary archives. Click here for NM secondary archives.
  Other governors on Civil Rights:			Michelle Lujan-Grisham on other issues:
  [Title7]	Gubernatorial Debates 2023: KY: Incumbent Andy Beshear(D) vs.State A.G. Daniel Cameron(R) vs.Ambassador Kelly Craft(R) vs.State Auditor Mike Harmon(R) LA: Incumbent John Bel Edwards(D,term-limited) vs.Jeff Landry(R) vs.Shawn Wilson(D) vs.John Schroder(R) vs.Sharon Hewitt(R) MS: Incumbent Tate Reeves(R) vs.Bill Waller(R,withdrew) vs.Brandon Presley(D) Gubernatorial Debates 2024: DE: Gov. John Carney (D, term-limited); Lt. Gov. Bethany Hall-Long (D) vs. Matt Meyer (D) IN: Gov. Eric Holcomb (R, term-limited); Sen. Mike Braun (R) vs. Suzanne Crouch (R) vs. Jennifer McCormick (D) MO: Gov. Mike Parson (R, term-limited): Jay Ashcroft (R) vs. Bill Eigel (R) vs. Mike Kehoe (R) vs. Crystal Quade (D) MT: Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) vs. Tanner Smith (R) vs. Ryan Busse (D)	Gubernatorial Debates 2024 (continued): NC: Gov. Roy Cooper (D, term-limited); Dale Folwell (R) vs. Michael Morgan (D) vs. Mark Robinson (R) vs. Josh Stein (D) vs. Andy Wells (R) ND: Gov. Doug Burgum (R) vs. State Rep. Rick Becker (R) NH: Gov. Chris Sununu (R, retiring) vs. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R) vs. Joyce Craig (D) vs. Chuck Morse (R) vs. Cinde Warmington (D) UT: Gov. Spencer Cox (R) vs. State Rep. Phil Lyman (R) VT: Gov. Phil Scott (R) unopposed WA: Gov. Jay Inslee (D, retiring); Hilary Franz (D, withdrew) vs. State Sen. Mark Mullet (D) vs. County Chair Semi Bird (R) vs. WA Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) WV: Gov. Jim Justice (R, term-limited); vs. WV State Auditor JB McCuskey (R, withdrew) vs. WV Secretary of State Mac Warner (R) vs. State Del. Moore Capito (R) vs. WV Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) vs. Huntington Mayor Steve Williams (D)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families/Children Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Infrastructure/Technology Jobs Local Issues Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty [Title9]

  
  
  
  
  
  Page last updated: Feb 16, 2024; copyright 1999-2022 Jesse Gordon and OnTheIssues.org