AZ-SEN: Openly LGBT Kyrsten Sinema Wins!

Congressperson Kyrsten Sinema has won election to the United States  Senate from Arizona, defeating Congresswoman Martha McSally in a very close race. Sinema, 42, is the first female Senator from Arizona, and as a bisexual woman, only the second openly LGBTQ member of the "world's most exclusive deliberative body," following openly lesbian Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin (who was re-elected last Tuesday) in Wisconsin with 55% of the vote. She will also be one of the youngest members of the U.S. Senate.

4 Days After #ElectionDay: Clinton 228, Trump 290. MI(16),NH(4) Uncalled!

It is now 4 days after Election Day and the full results in the presidential election are still not known. Donald Trump is the president-elect of the United States because he has won more vote in enough states to claim more than 270 electoral votes. However, Hillary Clinton now leads by over  600,000 votes in the popular vote total; this is expected to swell to over 1 million by the time California certifies its results in December. Currently, they have only tabulated roughly 9 million votes in a state where 12 million people votes in 2012 and Clinton leads 2-to-1.

Since I blogged last on Wednesday, Arizona (11 electoral votes) was called definitively for Trump on Friday even though he won there relatively handily 49-44 in what used to be thought of as a non-swing state. In Michigan, Trump leads by roughly 13,000 votes out of 4.7 million votes cast. In New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) Clinton, is ahead by a narrow total of 2528 votes out of 700,000 cast. The U.S. Senate race in New Hampshire (which, at an estimated total of $100 million spent, was the most expensive of the year) was decided in Governor Maggie Hassan's favor over incumbent Kelly Ayotte by a mere 743 votes! Ayotte has surprisingly conceded the race without requesting a recount.

Stay tuned!

2016 ELECTION: Trump 279, Clinton 228. AZ(11),MI(16),NH(4) Uncalled

Donald Trump was elected 45th President of the United States  last night this morning when Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were called for the GOP candidate, eliminating Hillary Clinton's path to 270 electoral votes, as Trump surpassed that threshold.. Like in 2000, the Democratic candidate will win the popular vote, but lose in the electoral college. The 27 electoral votes of Arizona (11) and Michigan (16), New Hampshire (4) are still close to call but Trump is leading there. He also won a rare electoral college vote in the North East by wining Maine's 2nd congressional district.

GODLESS WEDNESDAY: Mormons Trying To Influence Ballot Measures in Western States (AZ,CO,CA,NV)

The Mormon Church notoriously (and somewhat disastrously) got involved with a California ballot measure in 2008 called Proposition 8 that purported to amend the United States California Constitution to ban same-sex marriage that was eventually struck down in a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision on June 26, 2013. has decided that it didn't learn its lesson 8 years ago and is getting involved in opposing a series of ballot measures involving social issues in various West Coast states.

The Deseret News reports:

The LDS Church's First Presidency is asking the faith's members in four western states to oppose bills that would legalize doctor-assisted suicide and recreational marijuana use.
Church President Thomas S. Monson and his counselors sent a letter Wednesday to Mormons in Colorado, where Proposition 106 would legalize physician-assisted suicide. 

"We urge church members to let their voices be heard in opposition to measures that would legalize physician-assisted suicide," said the letter signed by President Monson, President Henry B. Eyring and President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, who make up the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

They sent a similar letter Wednesday to Mormons in Arizona, California and Nevada about marijuana legislation.
"We urge church members to let their voices be heard in opposition to the legalization of recreational marijuana use," the letter said.

The Mormon Church does not get involved in political issues very often (which is one reason their involvement in the Proposition 8 fight over same-sex marriage was so striking) so it is noteworthy that they are urging their adherents in California, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada to follow the Church's leadership instead of voting their conscience in these particular matters. It's also interesting that the LDS Church did not weigh in on Proposition 62 (abolish death penalty) and Proposition 66 (maintain death penalty) in California.

CELEBRITY FRIDAY: WNBA Newlyweds Each Suspended 7-Games For Domestic Violence Incident

Brittney Griner and Glory Johnson, two WNBA players, both 24-years-old, were suspended for a record 7 games (more than 20% of the WNBA season of 34 games) as a result of an April 22nd domestic violence incident where both women were arrested prior to their May 8th wedding in Phoenix Arizona.

The couple, who will use the surname Johnson-Griner, wrote their own vows. Ms. Griner was brief, funny and tender: “With you by my side, I know that I’ll always be taken care of and protected. I will give every ounce of my love that is possible to you, as long as you cook me fried chicken wings and hot chocolate.” 

Ms. Johnson’s vows also short and sweet, addressed the complications in their relationship head on — and with humor. “I promise to be the Whitney to your Bobby, the Bonnie to your Clyde, the Ike to your Tina,” she began, to laughter from the small gathering of about 50 friends and family. 

“I promise to accept that we’re different, that we will see the world differently and over the course of our marriage we will want different things,” she said. “I don’t expect this to be easy.”

Griner was the #1 WNBA draft pick in 2013 and made history doing so an openly LGBT athlete.

Good luck to the happy couple!

Now There Are 32! Wyoming Becomes Marriage Equality State

Just a few days after Arizona became the 31st state with marriage equality, another red state has joined the throng of marriage equality states today when Wyoming abandoned its fruitless legal battle in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's October 6 decision to not hear an appeal of two appellate circuits (the 4th and the 10th)  rulings that the federal constitution requires marriage equality.

What this means is that in 32 states (see map), same-sex couples can get married while there are three more states (Kansas, Montana and South Carolina) where federal appellate court rulings indicate that laws banning marriage equality are presumed unconstitutional, since a federal appellate court has said so about a sister state's laws in the same circuit.

This also means that there are for more states where same-sex couples can get married than where there are LGBT-based civil rights laws. This means that a couple can get married, and if their boss finds out about it, they can be fired from their job due to their sexual orientation and there is no state or federal legal recourse.

I suspect that this dispute will be the next phase of the LGBT equality movement, but it will take an affirmative change in public policy in a lot of these states where same-sex couples are brave enough to take advantage of their right to marry has been recognized by federal judges to change the state's laws.

Hat/tip to Joe Jervis

Arizona Becomes 31st State With Marriage Equality!

Arizona joined the growing number of states (31) that allow same-sex couples to get married when a federal judge struck down the Grand Canyon state's ban on marriage equality today. The judge based his decision on the 9th Circuit's ruling last week striking down Nevada's and Idaho's bans on marriage equality and refused to put a stay on its effect.

Hat/tip to Joe Jervis

9th Circuit Refuses To Reconsider Sexual Orientation Discrimination Ruling

Big news from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals! The now fully staffed court has denied a sua ponte request to reconsider their important ruling in SmithKline Beecham. That case is the about juror discrimination where the 9th Circuit ruled that sexual orientation is not a valid characteristic for removing a potential juror, by declaring that sexual orientation is a suspect classification that requires heightened scrutiny. A majority of judges on the 26-member court agreed that an en banc hearing was not warranted, while the three most conservative members of the court signed on to a 10-page decision dissenting in the decision of the court. Neither of the parties in the underlying dispute had asked the court to review the question of what standard of review sexual orientation should receive, that was instigated by an anonymous member of the 9th Circuit. The fact that the decision is now final means that in order to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in the 9th Circuit's jurisdictional area, an exceedingly persuasive reason has to be given. As  Joe Jervis says, this will almost certainly lead to marriage equality in the states of the 9th Circuit which do not have it yet: Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana and Nevada.

SCOTUS Blog also discusses the implications of the permanence of SmithKline:

 Of the twelve federal appeals courts to confront the issue, ten have taken the position that challenges to laws which allegedly discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation should be analyzed only by the least-demanding standard — that is, “rational basis” review.   Using that standard, at least some courts have upheld bans on same-sex marriage. 

[...] 

In the cases now awaiting Ninth Circuit review, state officials are attempting to defend same-sex marriage bans only in the Idaho case.  State officials in Oregon and Nevada have given up the defense of such bans, and Hawaii has moved on its own to allow such marriages.   Because the panel’s decision in the SmithKline decision is now binding in that circuit, in the wake of denial of en banc review, it sets the standard for judging the state bans throughout the geographic region included in the Ninth Circuit.

The other appellate court to decide sexual orientation should receive heightened scrutiny is the 2nd U.S. Circuit, which did so in their ruling which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act in Windsor v United States, a decision the Supreme Court upheld last year (but did not address the level of review question).

Important 9th Circuit Gay Rights Ruling May Not Be Permanent

Uh-oh! Although the date passed on March 7, 2014  by which the parties involved could appeal the 9th Circuit's important ruling in SmithKlinBeacham v Abbott in which the federal appellate court ruled earlier this year that sexual orientation must receive heightened scrutiny when laws are being analyzed for equal protection purposes, now comes word that the ruling may not be final and that an en banc hearing on the case may be in the works.

"A sua sponte en banc call having been made, the parties are instructed to filewithin 21 days of the filing date of this order simultaneous briefs setting forth theirrespective positions on whether the case should be reheard en banc. See G.O.5.4c(3). An original and fifty copies shall be filed. See Ninth Cir. R. 35-4(b)."

The court published an order today (excerpted above) which gives interested parties 21 days to file briefs as to why or why not a panel of 11 judges should hear the case, and possibly reverse it. What happens now is that after 21 days the entire 9th Circuit (which has something like 26 judges) will vote as to whether an en banc hearing should occur. If a majority votes in favor, then there is a possibility that a randomly selected 11-judge panel or the U.S. Supreme Court could reverse the ruling.  The current 3-judge panel that issued the unanimous ruling has some of the most liberal members of the circuit on it (Berzon, Reinhardt and Schroeder).

SmithKline is incredibly important ruling and the question of whether marriage equality will come sooner or later to atleast two states in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction (namely Nevada and Oregon) depends on whether the idea that sexual orientation is indeed a suspect class, which is a key corolary of the SmithKline Beacham decision.

MadProfessah will be watching developments in this case very closely!

Hat/tip to Equality on Trial

Lambda Legal Files Marriage Equality Lawsuit In Arizona!

Good news out of Arizona regarding LGBT equality! Lambda Legal has filed a lawsuit seeking to gain the right to marriage for same-sex couples in Arizona.

In the lawsuit, Lambda Legal, joined by pro bono co-counsel from Perkins Coie LLP, argues that the Arizona constitutional amendment and state statutes barring same-sex couples from marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  

The lead plaintiffs, Nelda Majors, 75, and Karen Bailey, 74, of Scottsdale, have been together for more than 55 years, and together have raised two children, Karen’s great grand-nieces Marissa and Sharla, as their own daughters since the girls came into their home as toddlers. Marissa is now 15 and Sharla 21. 

“Karen and I have been together since 1957,” Majors said.  “We’re a committed, loving family, have raised two amazing girls together, have seen each other through thick and thin, in sickness and in health. After five decades together, we want to celebrate and affirm our deep love for each other as other couples do, before our friends and family, through marriage. We’re also getting up there in years. I want to know that, should anything happen to me, there would be no question about Karen being allowed to be with me at the hospital, and vice versa. If we were married, there would be no question and we both would feel more secure.” 

“Arizona’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples serves no legitimate state interest, brands these loving couples and their children as second-class citizens, and encourages private bias and discrimination,” Pizer said. “And because the State does not even offer a lesser status such as civil union or domestic partnership, these loving couples live every day with the uncertainty that their families and relationships lack even basic protections.”

The name of the lawsuit is Majors v. Horne. As I have said, repeatedly, the fact that in the 9th U.S. Circuit (Washington, California, Oregon, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada and Montana) laws in these states that classify based on sexual orientation must receive heightened scrutiny that they are not violating the equal protection rights of LGBT people makes it very likely that bans on same-sex marriage in these states are toast. The deadline to appeal the decision that declared sexual orientation subject to heightened scrutiny passed last Friday, and this lawsuit I'm sure is a consequence of that decision.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) Also Supports Veto Of AZ Anti-Gay Law

Following the position of his junior colleague, 2008 Republican Presidential candidate John McCain http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2014/02/breaking-gop-sen-john-mccain-calls-for.html, legislation which claims to expand religious liberty to the point where a"sincerely held religious belief" can be used as a valid defense in court for violations of state public accommodations law. The immediate impact would be to empower anti-LGBT bigots with the ability to deny services they offer to the general public to LGBT people.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

WWJD: HRC Calls For Veto Of AZ LGBT Segregation Bill

What will Jan Do? LGBT people in Arizona and all over the United States are wondering what Jan Brewer will do with the discriminatory legislation (called SB1062) heading to her desk. Will she prevent it from becoming law, or will she allow her state to be associated with the imposition of legal segregation based on sexual orientation or gender identity?

HRC Calls on AZ Gov. Jan Brewer to Veto License to Discriminate Law

Deeply flawed legislation harms LGBT and other communities

WASHINGTON – Following the Senate passage of Arizona’s so-called “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin released the following statement:

“This bill is bad for business, bad for the LGBT community and bad for all Arizonans.  Governor Brewer, who herself described it as very controversial, must veto it and send a strong message that legally sanctioned discrimination has no place in Arizona.

“Religious groups have a long established first amendment ability to operate according to their own beliefs.  However, when individuals or businesses go out into the commercial market, they must abide by legal non-discrimination provisions.

“When providing a service to the public, a business owner shouldn’t pick and choose who they want to provide a service to and who they want to deny.  Instead of protecting religious liberty, this bill gives license for discrimination to run rampant across the state.”

Americans overwhelmingly believe that businesses should not be able to deny services to someone because they’re gay or lesbian:

• According to a poll by Third Way and the Human Rights Campaign 69 percent of Americans don’t think a business owner should be allowed to refuse to provide products or services to an individual because that person is gay or lesbian, compared to an incredibly small 15% that do. And when asked about small business owners in particular, a full 68% of Americans don’t think they should be able to refuse service to gays or lesbians, regardless of their religious beliefs. This supermajority included 55% of Republicans, 75% of Independents, 67% of people without college degrees, and 68% of Christians.
• When asked specifically about wedding-related services, like catering, flowers, or cakes, being provided by small businesses, 64% of voters were still opposed to new laws that would allow small businesses to deny wedding-related services based on their religious beliefs, compared to 31% in favor.

Because the language is so broad, any individual, corporation, institution, or business organization may be able to justify discrimination against LGBT individuals by claiming a religious belief. Potential examples include:

• Undermining local non-discrimination ordinances protecting LGBT individuals.
• Interfering with licensing organizations that have professional regulations protecting LGBT individuals.
• Employees may potentially bring litigation against employers who are enforcing internal nondiscrimination policies, including employer provided benefits for same-sex spouses (health insurance, retirement) and LGBT non-discrimination policies.
• Pharmacists could potentially refuse to provide HIV and hormone replacement therapy drugs.
• Restaurants, inns/hotels could potentially turn away same-sex couples celebrating an anniversary, adoption or pregnancy.
• Wedding garment shops, bakeries, photo studios, and reception halls could close their doors to same-sex couples planning their weddings.

The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

# # #

Arizona Legislature Passes "Religious Freedom" Bill That Purports To Legalize Anti-LGBT Discrimination

The LGBT blogosphere is abuzz with the news that Arizona has become the first legislature to attempt to codify anti-LGBT discrimination in public accommodations into law under the guise of expanding religious liberty.

The New York Times reported the news thusly:

PHOENIX — The Arizona Legislature passed a measure on Thursday that allows business owners asserting their religious beliefs to refuse service to gays and others, drawing backlash from Democrats who called the proposal “state-sanctioned discrimination” and an embarrassment. 

The 33-to-27 vote by the House sent the legislation to Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican. 

Governor Brewer does not comment on pending legislation, but she vetoed a similar measure last year. That action, however, came during an unrelated political standoff, and it was not clear whether she would support this plan. 

Similar religious protection legislation has been introduced in Ohio, Kansas, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Oklahoma, but Arizona’s plan is the only one that has passed. The efforts are stalled in Idaho, Ohio and Kansas.

It should be noted that Phoenix, the nation's 6th largest city, only enacted an LGBT rights ordinance last year and that if this measure becomes law all someone would have to say is that the have a "sincerely held religious belief" to justify denying service to LGBT people in Phoenix or anywhere in the state.

I  think if Governor Brewer actually signs the bill into law, the boycotts that Arizona saw over the passage of the xenophobic SB 1070 will pale in comparison what will happen soon as news about homophobic segregation becomes more well-known. SB 1070 was eventually struck down by the United States Supreme Court. I wonder how quickly Arizona will be in court, especially since that state is in the 9th circuit, where laws that classify based on sexual orientation receive heightened scrutiny which means that such laws need to demonstrate that they are directly related to an important governmental interest. I doubt that "we want to discriminate against gays because our God tells us so" will be a sufficient reason!

Phoenix (Finally) Enacts LGBT Rights Ordinance

Phoenix, AZ, the nation's 6th most populous city, has finally joined its fellow large municipalities and passed an ordinance banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. The vote by the City Council was 5-3, at one of the most contentions city council meetings in recent memory.

KPHO reported on the measure's passage:

The city currently prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, genetic information and marital status. 

"This was the right thing to do for our city," Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton said. "With 165 other cities, including Tucson and Flagstaff, adopting similar ordinances, some more than a decade ago, Phoenix had some catching up to do. We as a city value all our citizens, and consider diversity as our strength. It's good for business, it's good for our economy, and it's the right thing to do for Phoenix." 

More than 50 people spoke about the issue at a council hearing that lasted more than four hours and stretched into Tuesday night. 

The debate was over the Human Relations Ordinance. A conversative Christian group, the Center for Arizona Policy, has labeled the ordinance the Bathroom Bill.  

One man told the council he sees the changes as opening a door for sexual predators. He was followed by a local pastor who told the mayor that every Phoenician has the right to be treated equally. 

The Human Relations Ordinance revolves around adding three phrases to the city's anti-discrimination policies when it comes to employment, housing, city contracts and public accommodations: "sexual orientation," "gender identity" and "disability."   

Phoenix is one of the few major cities in the country that hadn't adopted a similar policy protecting civil rights of the LGBT community.

The article goes on to note that Tucson had passed a similar ordinance way back in 1999(!)

hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Godless Wednesday: AZ Links God and Graduation?

Arizona is well-known for bizarre public policy proposals, but the latest news about a bill to require all high school graduates to state a faith-based oath in order to get a diploma has many people up in arms.

This is the text of the proposed oath:

I, _______, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties; So help me God.

Anyone see any problems with forcing all high school seniors in Arizona to state an oath containing the word "God" in it?

Good grief!

Hat/tip to Think Progress

Godless Wednesday: Is U.S. Rep. Sinema An Atheist?

U.S. Representative Kyrsten Sinema, the first openly bisexual Member of Congress, was sworn in last week on a copy of the Constitution and is the only member who explicitly lists her religious affiliation as "None."

However, despite these facts, Rep. Sinema does not publicly identify as an atheist and atheists around the country are starting to wonder, does Sinema think there's something wrong with being identified as an atheist?

In an article titled "'Atheist' isn't a dirty word, congresswoman" on CNN's Religion blog, Harvard chaplain Chris Steadman says:

As a nontheist, atheist and nonbeliever (take your pick), I find this statement deeply problematic.

It is perfectly fine, of course, if Sinema isn’t a nontheist, and it is understandable that she would want to clarify misinformation about her personal beliefs. But to say that these terms are “not befitting of her life’s work or personal character” is offensive because it implies there is something unbefitting about the lives and characters of atheists or nonbelievers.

[...]

Why not instead say that she’s not an atheist, but so what if she was?

The 113th Congress is rich with diversity. As an interfaith activist, I am glad to see the religious composition of Congress more closely reflect the diversity of America. As a queer person, I’m glad that LGBT Americans are seeing greater representation in Washington.

But as a proud atheist and humanist, I’m disheartened that the only member of Congress who openly identifies as nonreligious has forcefully distanced herself from atheism in a way that puts down those of us who do not believe in God.

We are Americans of good character, too.

I agree wholeheartedly with Steadman's remarks and I want to add some thoughts. I see this debate over the label "atheist" similar to the debate over the word "feminist." Being a feminist means that you believe in complete equality between the sexes. Period.  That there are so many women (and men) who do not identify with the term (despite believing in the principle it embodies) is a direct result of the inequity feminism is trying to address (and a concerted effort by people who do not believe in equality to stigmatize the word).

To me, it's important to push back on those forces and re-affirm the principle of equality between the sexes by using the preferred, simplest term. Just like I see it is important to use the simplest term to communicate that I reject religion in all its forms, since the simplest way to do that is to reject the notion of "God"--ergo, the term "atheist."

What do you think?

Preparing For Prop 8 Decision Day: The Options

John Gara/Buzzfeed

The Day of Decision for California's Proposition 8 is fast approaching. LGBT legal guru Chris Geidner summarizes the 4 possibilities that the United States Supreme Court will most likely be deciding on Friday November 30th:

• The court takes multiple DOMA cases and the Proposition 8 case. This outcome would be the “all in” option, and it would make clear that at least four justices want the court to resolve the legal questions surrounding these issues, from what level of scrutiny that laws classifying people based on sexual orientation should be given (see more about this here) to whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry. (The DOMA cases also feature the unusual circumstances, in place since February 2011, of the Obama administration opposing the law's constitutionality and the House Republican leadership defending the law.)
• The court takes one DOMA case, while holding the other DOMA cases pending that decision, and takes the Proposition 8 case as well. This is not very different from the first possibility, although the choice of one DOMA case over another could be seen as narrowing the type of argument about the law that the court would like to hear. More likely though, it would simply be a sign of the justices having picked a case in which Justice Elena Kagan, who served as the top appellate lawyer in the Obama administration before joining the court and may choose to recuse herself from one or more of the DOMA cases because of that, can participate.
• The court takes one DOMA case and holds the rest of the cases, including Proposition 8, pending the outcome of the DOMA case. This prospect, advanced as a possibility by Georgetown law professor Nan Hunter, could be taken by a cautious court, wanting first to resolve some general questions — including the level of scrutiny to be applied to sexual orientation classifications — before acting on the other, more direct, question about whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry that is raised in the Proposition 8 challenge. This, as with taking the Proposition 8 case, would delay when same-sex couples in California might be able to marry.
• The court takes a DOMA case, but denies certiorari in the Proposition 8 case. This option, once considered by advocates to be the most likely possibility, would lead to same-sex couples being able to marry in California within days. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in the case did not broadly resolve the marriage question, instead holding that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional because it took back rights formerly held by Californians. As there are other cases in the legal pipeline about same-sex couples marriage rights that could make their way to the Supreme Court, the court could decide to let the narrow Ninth Circuit decision stand.

Tune in to this space on Friday for the news of what happens with Proposition 8!

2 Weeks Until Election: Obama 233, Romney 195

There are now two weeks until election day, a mere 14 days and the presidential race is getting even tighter. Last week the difference between Obama-Biden 2012 and Romney-Ryan 2012 was 25 electoral votes, with the blue team at 247 electoral votes to the red team's 222.

This week, both teams have had their electoral vote totals reduced as more states slip into the Undecided (or yellow) category from last week. Obama-Buden lost 14 electoral votes while Romney-Ryan lost 27, nearly twice as many. There are a total of 8 states in the yellow category: Ohio (18), Iowa(6) , New Hampshire (4), Virginia (13), Florida (29), Pennsylvania (20),  Arizona (11) and Colorado (9) totally 120 electoral votes. This is because once the polling average becomes 2 points or less, the TPM Electoral Scoreboard considers  the state to be in the "Undecided" category.

However the blue team now has a lead of 38 electoral votes with 14 days to go. Some of the states that are listed as undecided are very likely to revert to their historical pattern, with Arizona's 11 electoral votes going to the Republicans and Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes going to the blue team.

If there any dramatic changes in the next few days I may post updates on a more frequent schedule instead of waiting for next week.

Stay tuned!

Celebrity Friday: Tara Borrelli Named CA Top 100 Lawyer

Tara Borelli is an acquaintance of mine who works in the Western Regional Office of Lambda Legal in Los Angeles on impact litigation impacting the LGBT and HIV/AIDS communities. It is with great pleasure I get to declare that she is today's subject of Celebrity Friday thanks to the fact that the Daily Journal (which is basically the daily newspaper for lawyers in the state of California) has named Tara one of the Top 100 lawyers in the state of California!

The Journal recognized Borelli for her work in four of the cases in which she is leading litigation:

• Golinski v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, in which Lambda Legal won a district court ruling that a key portion of the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.
• Diaz v. Brewer, in which Lambda Legal represents seven lesbian and gay Arizona state employees in federal court and has blocked the state's discriminatory attempt to eliminate the health care benefits that they rely on to safeguard their families' health.
• Sevcik v. Sandoval, Lambda Legal's federal case challenging Nevada's law prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.
• Esquivel v. Oregon, in which Lambda Legal represents a state employee denied medically necessary surgery because he is transgender.

These are all very important cases, with Diaz v. Brewer on the docket before the United States Supreme Court as it considers whether to grant certiorari in Governor Jan Brewer's non-sensical appeal of an injunction against the state of Arizona from dropping domestic partner benefits for state employees. Golinksi is another one of the many recent cases which have been used to demonstrate the legal abomination which is the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), although it is unlikely to make it to the high court at the same time as some other cases which are further along, but the Department of Justice has asked the Supreme Court to consider it along with the myriad other courses in which DOMA has been struck down at either the federal district or appellate court level.

AZ-09: Openly Bisexual Candidate Wins Primary

Krysten Sinema won a hotly contested Democratic primary election in Arizona's 9th Congressional District last night. She becomes the first openly bisexual major party candidate for a U.S. House seat and could potentially join a delegation of 8 openly LGBT Congresspeople elected this fall. Sinema was a State Senator in Arizona and resigned her seat to run for Congress. She defeated State Senate minority leader David Schapira who was accused by Sinema of resorting to homophobia-fueled attacks in the closing days of the primary campaign.

The 9th Congressional district is a new district that includes the city of Tempe. Her Republican opponent is still unknown because the primary is too close to call, but Vernon Parker is currently in the lead and is expected to place first in a crowded field of Republicans.

Hat/tip to Gay Politics.