The Stonewall Democrats have identified the following twenty-two Democratic Members of Congress voted to remove the Matthew Shepard Act from the Defense Authorization bill:
1. Robert Berry (AR-1)
2. Dan Boren (OK-2)
3. Bobby Bright (AL-2)
4. Travis Childers (MS-1)
5. Artur Davis (AL-7)
6. Lincoln Davis (TN-4)
7. Joe Donnelly (IN-2)
8. Chet Edwards (TX-17)
9. Brad Ellsworth (IN-8)
10. Bart Gordon (TN-6)
11. Parker Griffith (AL-5)
12. Frank Kratovil (MD-1)
13. Jim Marshall (GA-8)
14. Mike McIntyre (NC-7)
15. Scott Murphy (NY-20)*
16. Collin Peterson (MN-7)
17. Mike Ross (AR-4)
18. Bobby Scott (VA-3)*
19. Heath Shuler (NC-11)
20. John Tanner (TN-8)
21. Gene Taylor (MS-4)
22. Harry Teague (NM-2)
Click on the link to go directly to govtrack to find additional information on this congressman.
The measure and vote referenced here, called a “motion to instruct” and offered up by House Republicans, would have instructed the conferees to remove the Matthew Shepard Act from the Defense Authorization bill. These twenty-two Democrats sided with the Republicans to remove the hate crimes provision, which would have effectively continued the decade-long gridlock over passage of the Matthew Shepard Act.
It is the opinion of the board of directors of the National Stonewall Democrats Political Action Committee that Members of Congress who vote against the expansion of basic fairness and equal opportunity have not earned your vote or your financial support. Furthermore, it is the opinion of the board that such Members of Congress should not receive support from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee or state coordinated campaigns in their re-election bids to the U.S. House.
If a representative is in your area, contact them immediately regarding their vote on this measure. Report back on this blog any significant information you find.
UPDATE AND NOTES
1. Stonewall Democrats has been contacted by the office of Representative Scott Murphy, who wishes our members and supporters to know that he supports the expansion of hate crimes legislation based on sexual orientation and gender identity and is a co-sponsor of both the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal legislation. His vote on this measure was strictly procedural.
2. Representative Bobby Scott, who is a co-sponsor of ENDA, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and DOMA repeal, released the following statement in explanation of his vote to strip the hate crimes bill from the Defense Authorization issued October 6, 2009:
Congressman Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, Chairman of Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security on the House Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement regarding his Yea vote on the Republican Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010:
“I am a supporter of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The House passed a version of the Act that I not only voted for, but spoke in favor of through committee and Floor proceedings. I also supported the similar version of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act that passed both the House and Senate last Congress, but was taken out of the military authorization bill during the Conference process.
“The version of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act that was the subject of the Motion to Instruct Conferees today is a version of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed by the Senate that I cannot support. Not only does that version contain a gratuitous death penalty, but also a superfluous mandatory minimum sentence, and what I believe to be unconstitutional infringements upon freedoms of expression and association.
“I am an opponent of the death penalty as a matter of moral principle, and because death penalty administration in this country has been shown to be applied in an arbitrary manner and to be irrevocably fraught with mistake, racism, classicism, and other problems. I am also an opponent of mandatory minimum sentences, as a matter of principle. Mandatory minimum sentences have been rigorously studied and have been consistently found to distort rational sentencing principles, to be applied in a racially discriminatory manner and to violate commonsense – even when everyone agrees a mandatory sentence is inappropriate to the facts and circumstances of a particular case, the mandatory sentence still has to be applied as a matter of law.
“Finally, I am a strong supporter of our First Amendment freedoms, including the freedoms of belief, expression and association. By allowing evidence of belief, expression and association to be admitted to prove that a hate crime was committed, without requiring that the belief, expression or association be shown to have a specific connection to the offense charged, is an impermissible infringement upon those freedoms, I believe.
“For these reasons, I voted for the motion to remove the version of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act in H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, considered today.”
Dear Rep. Scott,
Thank you for your support of ENDA, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” repeal, and DOMA repeal. Thank you for your statement explaining your vote against the inclusion of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act in HR 2647. I personally find the death penalty troublesome, but recognize that it is included in many Legislative Acts both at the Federal and State level. I intend to watch your votes on future legislation that includes death penalty consequences, and for your support on the next Hate Crimes Prevention Act that is brought forward for a vote.
Yours truly,
Virginia H. Reed
In the title, why does the word “Democrat’s” get an apostrophe and “Republicans” doesn’t? Hint: “Republicans” is correctly spelled.
Bobby Scott’s response is a good illustration of the consequences of bundling legislation.
It’s difficult for me to criticize him for two reasons: I share his opinions about the death penalty and mandatory sentencing. And, he is without question a strong supporter of LGBT issues. I hope that in November 2012, after redistricting, I get the chance to vote for him again as I did in the 90s.
The death penalty provision is particularly troublesome. The purpose for this legislation was never primarily retribution against offenders. Instead it is designed to obtain federal participation in prosecutions where local authorities are unable or unwilling to recognize the characteristics of a bias crime.
I support the act as it stands, but that’s perhaps because I’m more willing than Bobby Scott to be expedient. I cannot criticize him for standing by principles that are literally a matter of life and death.
I am glad Bobby Scott’s response is included because, were I a member of congress, I would not have supported the act for some of the same reasons. As a person with a criminal justice background, I could not support legislation that expands policies that have proven classist and racist time and time again (man. min sentences and capital punishment).
It is important in the fight to gain and protect our rights, we consider the broader impact it has on others.
I want to see a working version of The Matthew Shepard Act/Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed. But an act with Matthew Shepard’s name needs to be an act to protect the people, not add to the mess that our Criminal Justice system is currently.
DOUCHE BAGS!!!
1. Robert Berry (AR-1)
2. Dan Boren (OK-2)
3. Bobby Bright (AL-2)
4. Travis Childers (MS-1)
5. Artur Davis (AL-7)
6. Lincoln Davis (TN-4)
7. Joe Donnelly (IN-2)
8. Chet Edwards (TX-17)
9. Brad Ellsworth (IN-8)
10. Bart Gordon (TN-6)
11. Parker Griffith (AL-5)
12. Frank Kratovil (MD-1)
13. Jim Marshall (GA-8)
14. Mike McIntyre (NC-7)
15. Scott Murphy (NY-20)*
16. Collin Peterson (MN-7)
17. Mike Ross (AR-4)
18. Bobby Scott (VA-3)*
19. Heath Shuler (NC-11)
20. John Tanner (TN-8)
21. Gene Taylor (MS-4)
22. Harry Teague (NM-2)
Why the hell was this “bundled” with that bill anyway? Hello…the Defense Authorization Act? WTF? It sucks that it couldn’t be introduced and upheld on it’s own accords, and just for what it was intended to co. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad it’s progressing, but the way it got done was politics as usual.
I am curious as to what exactly empowered and justified Rep. Scott Murphy of NY, to feel compelled to contact the offices of the Stonewall Democrats. Actually his representatives apparently were the ones that contacted and provided the following lame passive aggressive statement. Scott Murphy, wishes our members and supporters to know that he supports the expansion of hate crimes legislation based on sexual orientation and gender identity and is a co-sponsor of both the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal legislation. And that HIS VOTE WAS STRICLY PROCEDURAL??
What does that mean. That is what I would like to know? How does one decide it is okay do to procedure to deny the rights of others and their protection under those rights for their individual pursuit of happiness. I am not sure when the people we the people entitled those that we the people place into office to govern the laws of the land, the entitlement to include govern the personal rights. What is this prcedural process exactly? and how many other good has been shafted due to prcedural process justification for good people making bad choices?
If we want our voices to be heard beyond the aides of the members of Congress who find rationalizations to aid and abet hate crimes, here’s a list of Facebook pages with most of the members of Congress listed.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Marion-Berry/8080260543
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dan-Boren/6502226903
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Travis-W-Childers/23662289669
http://www.facebook.com/arturdavis#
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lincoln-Davis/6805785966
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Joe-Donnelly/6755178541
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Chet-Edwards/7772541886
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Brad-Ellsworth/6920656297
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bart-Gordon/6720356733
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Parker-Griffith/87724685776
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Frank-Kratovil/6761873353
http://www.facebook.com/pages/James-Marshall/7822409257
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mike-McIntyre/21317529304
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Collin-Peterson/6595227967
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mike-Ross/36357372464
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Robert-Scott/19301602304
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Heath-Shuler/6216929238
http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Tanner/8096502215
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Gene-Taylor/20360678488
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Harry-Teague/19239843362
Perhaps these legislators should each have a family member tied to a fence, savagely beaten, and left to die alone. The death penalty should be included for those who commit hate crimes like those who savagely murderd Matthew Shepard and they should be put to death in the same manner. Matthew Shepard was shown no mercy…why should they? Our legislators have no balls.
Reading more about this bill, I find the irony that this bill is being attached to a defense bill, for the military, the military that kicks out queers because they hate us. Who thought this one up? How much of the money to be spent on defense will be used to pay for Don’t Ask Just Beat the Queers Up, Kick them Out and Replace them with Felons and Fascists?
This bill has been jerked around by Obama. First, he vowed to veto the military spending bill b/c it contained the F-22 program. That got him out of saying it was because of the Shepard Act. Then Congress removed the F-22s. Very soon after that the death penalty was added. Obama is pro-death penalty, but most liberals are not. I am against the death penalty, and I would hate to see our hate crimes legislation carry that barbaric penalty in Matthew Shepard’s name. He was the victim of a barbaric crime, and now the bill will exact barbaric punishment. We should fight for a death-penalty free bill. This is just more stalling by the Obama admin working behind hte scenes.
Thanks!!! Nice post!
There’s a rumor going around that the “death penalty” language was removed from HR 2647. However, until I see the official language of the official bill on the table with “shall be subject to the penalty of death” removed, then I am not in support of this particular expansion of hate crimes legislation.
Not only that, it is married to a bunch of DoD stuff. Being anti-war and anti-imperialist, I am against almost every other part of this bill.