Antidiscrimination Bill Will Pass, but Without the ‘Bandwagon’ Effect

WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 23: Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) (L) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) speak about the ''No Budget No Pay'' legislation during a news conference on Capitol Hill, January 23, 2013 in Washington, DC. The bipartisan legislation would require members of Congress to pass a budget in order to receive their pay.
National Journal
Elahe Izad and Fawn Johnson
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Elahe Izad Fawn Johnson
Nov. 4, 2013, 3:23 p.m.

While the Em­ploy­ment Non-Dis­crim­in­a­tion Act is now headed to­ward fi­nal pas­sage in the Sen­ate, don’t ex­pect a surge of sup­port from law­makers. It’s a safe bet that in the end the meas­ure will be sup­por­ted by less than 70 sen­at­ors.

The bill, which bans work­place dis­crim­in­a­tion based on gender iden­tity or sexu­al ori­ent­a­tion, has not cre­ated the “band­wag­on ef­fect” some­times seen in ma­jor le­gis­la­tion, in which a slew of sup­port­ers piles on once a bill is cer­tain to pass.

In fact, it took last-minute wrangling Monday — par­tially due to the ab­sence of sen­at­ors ex­pec­ted to vote “aye” — to se­cure enough votes on the mo­tion to pro­ceed to the bill, which passed 61-30. A fi­nal vote could come as early as Wed­nes­day.

Pas­sage had been all but locked in by Monday morn­ing, with Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., an­noun­cing his sup­port. He be­came the 60th sen­at­or ex­pec­ted to vote for the bill, with all 55 Demo­crats and in­de­pend­ents in­dic­at­ing their back­ing.

Oth­er Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­ors in fa­vor of the bill are Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Mark Kirk of Illinois, who are co­spon­sors. Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who wasn’t present for Monday’s vote, and Or­rin Hatch of Utah voted for the bill in com­mit­tee. Re­pub­lic­ans Kelly Ayotte of New Hamp­shire, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Rob Port­man of Ohio — who had been pub­licly un­de­cided on the le­gis­la­tion — are those be­ing eyed as pos­sible “yes” votes. They sup­por­ted the mo­tion to pro­ceed after lob­by­ing from Collins. At one point, Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id and the No. 3 Demo­crat in the Sen­ate, Chuck Schu­mer, entered the Re­pub­lic­an cloak­room as part of the ef­fort and struck an agree­ment to put up ad­di­tion­al amend­ments for votes.

As part of the deal, an amend­ment from Ayotte and Port­man that pre­vents loc­al and state gov­ern­ment from re­tali­at­ing against those ex­empt from ENDA will have to reach just a 50-vote threshold for pas­sage. An­oth­er vote will be held on an amend­ment from Toomey that broadens the defin­i­tion of a re­li­gious or­gan­iz­a­tion un­der ENDA. That will need 60 for pas­sage.

The bill won’t likely be­come law in this Con­gress. House Re­pub­lic­an lead­ers say the pro­tec­tions af­forded un­der ENDA are already covered by ex­ist­ing law. “The speak­er be­lieves this le­gis­la­tion will in­crease frivol­ous lit­ig­a­tion and cost Amer­ic­an jobs, es­pe­cially small-busi­ness jobs,” said Mi­chael Steel, a spokes­man for House Speak­er John Boehner.

Des­pite that, pas­sage in the Sen­ate is a ma­jor vic­tory for the gay-rights com­munity, which has seen a surge in polit­ic­al “wins” over the last year, in­clud­ing the Su­preme Court’s land­mark de­cision strik­ing down the De­fense of Mar­riage Act and New Jer­sey be­com­ing the 14th state to em­brace same-sex mar­riage.

“In the 44 years since Stone­wall, this has been the gay­est year in his­tory,” said Fred Sainz, vice pres­id­ent for com­mu­nic­a­tions at the Hu­man Rights Cam­paign. “With the Sen­ate pro­spect­ively join­ing the trend, that really tells you that we are on an up­ward tra­ject­ory.”

But law­makers’ sup­port lags be­hind pub­lic opin­ion. The bill def­in­itely has 60 votes and may get a few more. But the na­tion is far more sup­port­ive. About three-quar­ters of Amer­ic­ans be­lieve dis­crim­in­a­tion in the work­place against gays, les­bi­ans, or trans­sexu­als should be il­leg­al, in­clud­ing 60 per­cent of Re­pub­lic­ans and 59 per­cent of white evan­gel­ic­al Prot­est­ants, ac­cord­ing to the Pub­lic Re­li­gion Re­search In­sti­tute, a non­par­tis­an think tank.

Yet the is­sue still seems to make law­makers squeam­ish, even though ad­voc­ates have done their best to por­tray the nondis­crim­in­a­tion bill as a lo­gist­ic­al ho-hum for em­ploy­ers. (Many of the largest em­ploy­ers already have policies in place pro­hib­it­ing dis­crim­in­a­tion based on sexu­al ori­ent­a­tion.)

“About some of the Re­pub­lic­an reti­cence on the is­sue — I just think they may not have fully got­ten the memo that their con­stitu­ents have moved, even in very re­cent time,” said PRRI CEO Robert Jones. “This is an area where the ground has been shift­ing re­mark­ably quickly.”

Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ar­iz., sup­por­ted a sim­il­ar an­ti­discrim­in­a­tion bill in the House, which failed in 2007. But he ap­pears to be a “no” this time around. He told Na­tion­al Journ­al Daily that he sup­ports the House ver­sion, not the Sen­ate ver­sion. The main dif­fer­ence between the two bills is that the Sen­ate ver­sion cov­ers trans­gender in­di­vidu­als, and the House bill did not.

Port­man has said he is “in­clined” to sup­port the bill. He has already pub­licly stated his sup­port for same-sex mar­riage.

Even some Sen­ate Demo­crats wer­en’t an easy sell on the bill. Ad­voc­ates as­sumed all along that every Demo­crat would get on board with the bill, but they had a hard time ex­plain­ing why some, like Sen. Bill Nel­son of Flor­ida, held out un­til the last minute. Nel­son, un­like the oth­er Demo­crat­ic late­comers, Sens. Joe Manchin of West Vir­gin­ia and Mark Pry­or of Arkan­sas, didn’t have a polit­ic­al reas­on for stay­ing si­lent. Nel­son’s seat is safe, he isn’t up for reelec­tion un­til 2018, and Flor­ida is gen­er­ally fa­vor­able to­ward gay rights. Chalk up Nel­son’s foot-drag­ging to in­di­vidu­al quirks, the ad­voc­ates say.

What We're Following See More »
Doesn’t Express Confidence in Marino
Trump to Declare Opioid Emergency Next Week
1 hours ago
THE LATEST

After initially promising it in August, "President Trump said Monday that he will declare a national emergency next week to address the opioid epidemic." When asked, he also "declined to express confidence in Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pa.), his nominee for drug czar, in the wake of revelations that the lawmaker helped steer legislation making it harder to act against giant drug companies."

Source:
INTERVIEW THIS WEEK
Trump Still Considering Yellen For Fed
9 hours ago
THE LATEST

"President Donald Trump plans to formally interview Janet Yellen this week about potentially staying on as Federal Reserve chair, two people familiar with the matter said...Many Republicans on Capitol Hill want Trump to move on from Yellen, whose first term ends in February, and choose a more traditionally conservative Fed chair."

Source:
NOMINEE FOR ONDCP
Trump Noncommittal on Marino
9 hours ago
THE DETAILS
IN LIGHT OF 60 MINUTES REVELATIONS
Manchin Asks Trump to Drop Marino’s Nomination for Drug Czar
10 hours ago
THE LATEST
WOULD OVERTURN MARINO LEGISLATION ON DRUG DISTRIBUTORS
McCaskill Will Introduce Bill in Response to “60 Minutes” Scoop
11 hours ago
THE DETAILS

In the wake of Sunday's blockbuster 60 Minutes/Washington Post report on opioid regulation and enforcement, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) has introduced legislation that "would repeal a 2016 law that hampered the Drug Enforcement Administration’s ability to regulate opioid distributors it suspects of misconduct." In a statement, McCaskill said: “Media reports indicate that this law has significantly affected the government’s ability to crack down on opioid distributors that are failing to meet their obligations and endangering our communities."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login