Bathroom Ordinance Case Study

Home rule city is defined as the rules under which a city operates; local governments have considerable independent governing power under these charters. General rule city is a “general law” in which cities and towns may act or organize themselves only as explicitly permitted by statutory law passed by the state legislature; the constitution also limits what they can do.

The executive branch impacts on the prerogatives of local government by being responsible for implementing and administering the public policy enacted and funded by the legislative branch. The judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the constitution and laws and applying their interpretations to controversies brought before it.

The Houston “Bathroom Ordinance” has brought so many controversies all over the United State, but the ordinance has been varying from city to city. Houston held a referendum on an

antidiscrimination ordinance in November 2015 that gained national attention and was one of the most bitter and costly local elections in Texas history. Texas in one of the 28 states with no statewide laws prohibiting discrimination based in sexual orientation or gender identity. In the absence of the state law, Houston’s proposed ordinance would have prohibited bias in city housing, employment, city contracting, and business services for a number of classifications including race, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity. The core of the political argument surrounding the ordinance was the ban in discrimination based in sexual orientation and gender identity. (pg. 339)
Greg Abbott and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick used the bathroom argument to support their position.

Greg Abbott attempted to tie the issues into presidential politics when he tweeted, “HOUSTON: Vote Texas values, not Hilary Clinton values. Vote NO on City Proposition 1. No men in women’s bathrooms.” Supporters of the ordinance including Houston’s then mayor Annise Parker, who had been elected as the first openly gay mayor of a U.S. city and who argued that the passage of the ordinance would show that “Houston does not discriminate.” Abbott after becoming Governor on April 18, 2017 and after refusing to take a position in the controversial “bathroom bill” signaled he would sign legislation that bans transgender Texans from using the restroom that aligns with their gender identity. He stated “As the debate on this issue continues, I will work with the House and Senate to ensure we find a solution and ultimately get a bill to my desk that will sign into law.” The ordinance grew many concern to parents and communities across Texas who were looking for the Legislature for

solutions.
Proponents of the bathroom ban said it needed to ensure that men with nefarious motives didn’t enter the ladies restroom. Opponents of the bill contend it is intended to discriminate against transgender people, and worry it will hurt the Texas economy. Business groups in Texas lobbied hard against the measure, where a San Antonio- based tourism group published a statewide study estimating Texas could actually lose as much as $3.3 billion in economic activities if a bathroom ban were to be approved. Steve Atkins, the chairman of the San Antonio Tourism Council board then said that if the proposal of the “Bathroom Bill” were to pass that Texas would then become an unfriendly state.
The ban would prevent local government from protecting certain classes of individuals, like transgender Texans, the elderly, veterans and pregnant woman. It would also allow cities to pass discriminatory laws that ban certain people from using restrooms of their choice. Rep. Simmons offered a thoughtful proposal to make sure the children of Texas maintained privacy in school bathrooms and locker rooms.
To date the bathroom bill has still not passed and has quietly died. Legislators spent countless hours talking about who should use which bathroom in Texas, but have failed to pass any proposal that would restrict where transgender Texans relieve themselves, change clothes, or take showers in public setting other than their own home. During the regular sessions, lawmakers failed to pass a good deal of other bills that the LGBT community said were discriminatory. In November 2015 the ordinance failed over whelming by a 61 percent to 39 percent margin.