Utah becomes first state to ban LGBTQ+ pride flags in government buildings and schools

ENT

Utah becomes first state to ban LGBTQ+ pride flags in government buildings and schools

2025-03-29 07:33 Last Updated At：07:41

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah became the first state to prohibit flying LGBTQ+ pride flags at schools and all government buildings after the Republican governor announced he was allowing a ban on unsanctioned flag displays to become law without his signature.

Gov. Spencer Cox, who made the announcement late Thursday night, said he continues to have serious concerns with the policy but chose not to reject it because his veto would likely be overridden by the Republican-controlled Legislature.

Starting May 7, state or local government buildings will be fined $500 a day for flying any flag other than the United States flag, the Utah state flag, military flags or a short list of others approved by lawmakers. Political flags supporting a certain candidate or party, such as President Donald Trump's signature “Make America Great Again” flags, are not allowed.

The new law could stoke conflict between the state and its largest city. City buildings in liberal Salt Lake City typically honor Pride Month each June by displaying flags that celebrate its large LGBTQ+ population. Local leaders have illuminated the Salt Lake City and County Building in rainbow lights to protest the flag ban each night since the Legislature sent it to Cox's desk.

Andrew Wittenberg, a spokesperson for Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall's office, said their attorneys are evaluating the law and the capital city does not yet have information on what it will do once the law takes effect.

The bill’s Republican sponsors, Rep. Trevor Lee and Sen. Dan McCay, said it’s meant to encourage “political neutrality” from teachers and other government employees. Opponents argued it aims to erase LGBTQ+ expression and take authority away from cities and towns that don’t align politically with the Republican Legislature.

In a letter to legislative leaders explaining his decision, Cox said he agreed with the “underlying intent” of the bill to make classrooms politically neutral but thought it went too far in regulating local governments. He also noted that by focusing narrowly on flags, the law does not prevent other political displays such as posters or lighting.

“To our LGBTQ community, I know that recent legislation has been difficult,” Cox said. “Politics can be a bit of a blood sport at times and I know we've had our disagreements. I want you to know that I love and appreciate you and I am grateful that you are part of our state. I know these words may ring hollow to many of you, but please know that I mean them sincerely.”

Cox's decision came hours after the Sundance Film Festival announced it was leaving its home of four decades in Park City, Utah, for Boulder, Colorado. The flag bill created eleventh-hour tensions as some residents worried it would push the nation's premier independent film festival out of state. Festival leaders said state politics ultimately did not influence their move from conservative Utah to liberal Colorado. They did, however, make “ethos and equity values” one of their criteria in a nationwide search for a new home and referred to Boulder in their announcement as a “welcoming environment.”

Utah’s flag law goes further than one signed last week in Idaho that only applies to schools. But Idaho Republicans are also advancing a separate bill to ban government buildings from displaying certain flags.

Florida lawmakers have advanced a proposal to ban pride flags and others that represent political viewpoints in schools and public buildings after similar measures failed in the past two legislative sessions. Some federal agencies, including the Department of Veterans Affairs, also have limited which flags can fly at their facilities.

Other flags permitted under the Utah law include Olympic and Paralympic flags, official college or university flags, tribal flags and historic versions of other approved flags that might be used for educational purposes.

Pennsylvania mail-in ballots don't need accurate envelope dates, federal judge rules

2025-04-01 09:23 Last Updated At：09:31

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Election boards in Pennsylvania's 67 counties may not invalidate mail-in ballots simply because they lack accurate, handwritten dates on their exterior return envelopes, a federal judge ruled Monday.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Paradise Baxter, the latest in a long-running legal dispute over what is a small percentage of votes cast in the state, was issued more than two months after the state Supreme Court announced it also would consider the issue.

Baxter wrote that most counties did not try to argue that the exterior dates, which are not used to show whether a ballot was received in time, serve an important state interest in regulating elections. The Republican National Committee and one county, Berks, did argue the dates help combat voting fraud, Baxter wrote.

“Absent from the record, however, is any evidence demonstrating how this requirement furthers that purported interest," the judge wrote. The exterior envelope dating mandate violates the U.S. Constitution, she ruled, by impairing the right to vote under the First and Fourteenth amendments.

RNC spokesperson Abigail Jackson said it will appeal the decision, and Jeff Bukowski, Berks County’s lawyer, said he will discuss a potential appeal with the county commissioners. Jackson described the external envelope signature requirement as a commonsense safeguard.

The voter and groups that sued, including Democratic campaign organizations and a teachers' union, called the exterior envelope dates “nothing more than a ‘compliance test’” to show how state voters “'can follow written instructions,'” Baxter said.

She ruled there is no state interest in requiring the signatures and noted that more than 10,000 votes statewide were invalidated as a result of the dating mandate in the 2022 election.

“Such disenfranchisement burdens the right to vote and there is no valid state interest to weigh this against,” Baxter wrote.

A decision by Baxter throwing out the envelope date mandate in a separate case was eventually reversed by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but it was decided on a different issue.

Lower courts have repeatedly deemed it unconstitutional or illegal to throw out such ballots. But higher courts — including the state Supreme Court most recently on Nov. 1 — have blocked those decisions from taking effect. New envelope designs have helped reduce the number of invalidated votes.