By Siobhan M.

In recent years, Republicans have waged an increasingly aggressive war on transgender rights. Through bans on transition-related healthcare, sports participation restrictions, prohibitions on access to public spaces, and much more, Republican-controlled states are wreaking havoc on the lives of their trans residents in an effort to drive them out of public life and further stir the passions of their most frenzied adherents. 

Donald Trump has made restricting trans rights a centerpiece of his campaign, promising to ban federal funding for “promoting” gender transition and airing ads relentlessly criticizing Kamala Harris’s past support for providing transition-related care for people held in government custody. The right-wing Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, Project 2025, promises to roll back regulatory protections on LGBTQ+ rights, including by permitting harassment at work and banning trans people from the military. There is little doubt that the Republican Party is an existential threat to transgender people in this country.

At times, Democrats have drawn a stark contrast and taken relatively strong positions supporting trans rights. Harris herself, as Trump’s ads love to point out, stated her support for trans healthcare in government custody in 2019–though she argued the opposite position in her capacity as California Attorney General in 2015. Trans women, Sarah McBride and Danica Roem, were invited to speak at the 2016 and 2020 Democratic National Conventions, respectively. LGBTQ+ advocacy non-profit organizations have, in recent decades, been some of the most visible supporters of LGBTQ+ rights. Their advocacy and relationship-building within the Democratic Party has helped shore up LGBTQ+ rights in blue states, and their legal advocacy against anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination, often specifically in red states, has led to well-known victories like Lawrence v. Texas (2003), U.S. v. Windsor (2013), Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), and Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).

Democrats Retreat On Trans Rights

However, in the face of increased Republican pressure on the issue, the Democratic Party establishment has notably changed their tune on trans rights. No trans people spoke at the 2024 DNC, and trans rights were only briefly mentioned twice. Harris’s response to these Trump ads—other than silence—has been to criticize Trump for transition-related procedures provided to incarcerated people during his administration. The Biden administration, in May, went along with a Republican plan to ban Pride flags at U.S. embassies. The Democratic nominees for U.S. Senate in Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin are even running ads explicitly opposing trans rights.

The response from some to concerns about this harmful messaging has been to suggest that while the Democratic Party’s messaging is unsupportive, their policies show they have trans people’s backs. However, a closer look reveals the Democratic Party has been souring on its previously-broad conceptions of trans rights since at least April of 2023. Then, in an early indication of wavering support among establishment Democrats, the Biden administration issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding “Sex Related Eligibility Criteria for Male and Female Athletic Teams” under Title IX, the landmark law requiring sex equality in education. The administration could have used this as a moment for a full-throated defense of trans kids’ rights to play with their friends. They had a defensible legal position—it would have been consistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in Bostock to treat anti-trans discrimination as prohibited discrimination based on sex. Instead, Biden’s Department of Education put together a weak, unmanageable rule that allowed Democrats to claim they were protecting trans kids while leaving gaping holes for discriminatory policies. This proposed rule was written with the most obvious benefits for trans youth who are able to begin hormone therapy before starting puberty, but between unsupportive parents, the costs of receiving medical care, and state bans on youth transition, this encompasses only a tiny fraction of trans people. For all others who do begin endogenous puberty, the rule spells out the formula for Republican bans, allowing restrictions on sports participation based on alleged concerns over competitive fairness or injury risk.

A closer look reveals the Democratic Party has been souring on its previously-broad conceptions of trans rights.

On the issue of trans students’ sports participation, the closeness of LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations to the Democratic Party may have stifled criticism of the proposed rule. Shortly after it was released, a coalition of more than 20 progressive organizations, including several which explicitly exist to advocate for LGBTQ+ people, issued a press release lauding Biden’s “restoring and reinforcing vital civil rights protections for all students.” The organizations knew of the rule’s grave flaws–they even said in this release that “this regulation does not go far enough”–but they still advocated for it and, with a largely celebratory tone, congratulated Biden’s administration for issuing it.

To their credit, Democrats’ other proposed Title IX rule, “Enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 With Respect to Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Light of Bostock v. Clayton County,” was generally seen quite positively by advocates for trans rights when it was proposed in June of 2021, excepting the absence of protections in sport. It recognized harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity as prohibited sex-based harassment and granted trans students’ rights to use gender-appropriate bathrooms and locker rooms. However, after it was challenged in court, Democrats and their appointed justices ultimately appeared to abandon the proposal. In her dissent in Department of Education v. Louisiana (2024), Justice Sonia Sotomayor—an Obama appointee—wrote, “Every Member of the Court agrees” to block “three provisions of that Rule: 34 CFR §106.10 (2023) (defining sex discrimination), §106.31(a)(2) (prohibiting schools from preventing individuals from accessing certain sex-separated spaces consistent with their gender identity), and §106.2’s definition of hostile environment harassment.” Sotomayor further acknowledged the Biden administration, despite proposing the rule, “does not contest” the blocking of provisions allowing locker room and bathroom access or prohibiting a hostile school environment for queer and trans students. This even has implications beyond schools–the Affordable Care Act’s protections against discrimination in healthcare also flow from Title IX, meaning federal protections for queer and trans people in medical settings are now also at significant risk.

Establishment Democratic Party Senators and their allies are also starting to take anti-trans legislative action. Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) blocked a federal judge nominee on the grounds that she had previously ruled to allow an incarcerated trans woman to transfer to a women’s prison–sending a signal to careerist-oriented judges to not make similar rulings in the future. Sen. Joe Manchin (I-WV), a former Democrat still in their Senate caucus, also joined with Republicans to push through committee prohibitions on some trans healthcare for veterans and their families. Across the highest levels of American government, trans people are seeing a sharp change in tune from a Democratic Party that was recently proud of its support for trans rights.

Where Is This Headed?

One does not need to look far to see the potential end point. In the United Kingdom, the Labour Party, once supportive of trans rights as part of a broadly left agenda, has made a sharp rightward turn and is now leading a government that appears intent on driving trans people from existence in the UK. Labour have maintained a Tory ban on hormone therapy, including puberty blockers, from trans youth, forcing them to endure an excruciating puberty we have the capacity to prevent, but not entirely reverse. There are also disturbing reports of National Health Service GPs discontinuing their adult patients’ hormone therapy and functionally forcing them to detransition. When a formerly-supportive party turns on a vulnerable constituency, the consequences are dire.

Notably, Labour leader Keir Starmer’s heads of strategy and policy were in Washington to meet with Democratic Party strategists in early September. These Labour Party advisors suggested Harris go “on the front foot and launch[] a new policy on” immigration akin to Starmer’s “Border Security Command,” and encouraged Harris to think about a “longer-term question of making sure that the Democrats stay on the center ground.”

The Democratic Party’s changed tune on trans rights is beginning to echo their dramatic shift in immigration policy. When Trump made anti-immigrant sentiment central to his 2016 campaign, Democrats responded with forceful calls that “no human is illegal” and a platform to “defend against those who would exclude or eliminate legal immigration avenues and denigrate immigrants.” As Trump and Republicans have continued attacking immigrants, however, the Democratic Party has largely stopped speaking up in defense of immigrants and ceded more and more ground on immigration policy. Biden’s administration has worked to expand Trump’s border wall, even pushing to waive environmental regulations to allow them to do so more quickly. The administration has also taken executive action to significantly reduce avenues to apply for asylum. Perhaps most publicly, in early 2024, Biden and Congressional Democrats pushed a harsh immigration bill that Biden himself called the “toughest” in decades. After Republicans refused to pass the bill, Biden excoriated them in his State of the Union, touting the bill’s potential to “hire 1,500 more border security agents and officers” and its endorsements by the Border Patrol Union and the Chamber of Commerce and asking conservatives, “what are you against?” This total surrender by the Democratic Party to right-wing framing and policy on immigration could be an ominous sign for their commitment to trans rights.

Only A Socialist Workers’ Movement Can Win Lasting Protections

In the face of Republican exterminationist policies and increasing Democratic indifference, trans people must find another vehicle to fight for our rights–and socialist organizing is that vehicle. 

As long as capitalism exists, the right wing of the capitalist class will seek out cultural issues upon which to divide and conquer the working class. Hatred against minorities, whether immigrants, queer and trans people, religious minorities, or people of color, is time and time again intentionally stoked by the funds of billionaire donors, fanned by right wing media outlets, and all coordinated by right wing political operatives. For many of these capitalists, fueling hatred is “just business, don’t take it personally.”

But for those of us on the receiving end, this hatred they cultivate is profoundly personal and often violent. As long as the capitalist system remains, so too will exist the incentive and ability for a handful of billionaires to turn working people against one another. Every improvement won under the leadership of the liberal wing of the capitalist class is in jeopardy of being revoked from day one, so long as the capitalist system remains intact. The only solution which can win lasting security for trans people, and all marginalized groups, is to replace capitalism with a socialist system. Instead of being used to sow division, the resources of society, and especially our media, can be used to educate society on our beautiful diversity and collective commonality. The supposed divide between culturally-conservative working-class people and socially-progressive urban and college-educated people is not insurmountable. This was proven by the socialist-led Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners campaign, a story dramatized in the movie Pride (2014), in an inspiring demonstration that these two sections of society can be united in struggle.

Ultimately it will not be trans people organizing as a minority, but the socialist-led working class which will have the ability to contest for power with the capitalist class and win.

Ultimately it will not be trans people organizing as a minority, but the socialist-led working class which will have the ability to contest for power with the capitalist class and win, establishing a workers’ government which can carry out the socialist transformation of our economic and social structure. Without abandoning for a second the fight for the particular issues facing trans people, trans socialists must take their place in this fight for a socialist workers’ movement, especially by joining trade unions and working to form a new party.Trans and gender-nonconforming people are already leaders across socialist movements, including several members of DSA chapter leadership across Massachusetts. Evan MacKay–a nonbinary person, member of the Cambridge LGBTQ+ Commission, and DSA member and endorsee–came within a handful of votes in their bid earlier this year to unseat establishment Democrat Marjorie Decker. DSA is engaged in a nationwide campaign to protect and expand Trans Rights and Bodily Autonomy.

Still, we must do more. We must organize our workplaces into militant unions prepared to break with the Democratic Party and fight for causes like nationalized healthcare, including free and readily-available gender-affirming care on demand. We must dramatically scale up our political mobilization to escape the capitalist economic system that keeps trans people in financial precarity. We must build socialist, working-class power to fight for true trans liberation. Let every trans comrade take their place in the front ranks!

Siobhan M. is Treasurer of Boston DSA, Secretary of her UAW unit, and a UAWD member. The views expressed herein do not represent her employer.

COLUMBUS — The Columbus chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) issues the following recommendations to residents of Ohio.

1. In For Issue 1, YES.
2. In For Issue 46, YES.
3. In For Issue 47, YES.
4. In For U.S. President, NO RECOMMENDATION.
5. In For U.S. Senator, NO RECOMMENDATION.
6. In For Justice of the Supreme Court, vote MELODY STEWART.
7. In For Justice of the Supreme Court, vote MICHAEL DONNELLY.
8. In For Justice of the Supreme Court, vote LISA FORBES.

A detailed rationale for each recommendation follows.

Disclaimer: No recommendations made here are endorsements. Columbus DSA has not endorsed any candidate in this upcoming election. These recommendations are tactical considerations meant to minimize the harm likely to occur to the working class here and abroad as a result of this election.

Do you lament the lack of socialist, abolitionist, and pro-BDS candidates running for office? You can be a part of changing that, whether by running for office yourself or helping us to discover and cultivate future socialists-in-office. To advance the democratic socialist movement in Central Ohio, join DSA today: www.columbusdsa.org/join/.

Endorsed “YES” vote for Issue 1

Issue 1, the Citizens-Not-Politicians anti-gerrymandering ballot initiative, is an absolutely vital step to increase democratic representation in Ohio. We are proud to have overwhelmingly voted to endorse a YES vote for Issue 1 at our September General Meeting. 

Gerrymandering will always be a problem in politics: entrenched power has a habit of working to stay entrenched. Although Issue 1 is unlikely to eliminate the threat of gerrymandering, and we must always stay vigilant, the protections provided by the amendment and the constitutional body it creates to draw districts are much better than the politician-ran redistricting body we are currently oppressed by. Instead of having politicians draw their own districts and keeping power in the hands of political parties, Issue 1 would create a redistricting body made up of representatives from the two largest parties AND political independents (those who do not vote in partisan primaries). 

Issue 1 provides an opportunity for political voices outside entrenched parties – like us – to have a role in shaping the future of the state by creating a more realistic legislature that actually aligns with how Ohioans vote. This would be an incredible blow against the GOP-dominated state legislature, which has entrenched their supermajority not through the power of their politics (which are unpopular and not supported by Ohioans), but through bureaucratic rule-making such as redistricting. Fairer districts would also provide more opportunities for us to run our own socialist candidates in the future, creating additional pathways for us to build the power of the working class and begin to create the foundations of a party that actually serves working people instead of simply using them as an electoral base for liberal half-measures. 

It is absolutely vital that we pass Issue 1, and we strongly endorse a YES vote. Columbus DSA is also hosting canvasses in support of Issue 1 each Sunday at 1:30pm. Visit our calendar at columbusdsa.org/calendar to join one of our canvases.

Recommended “YES” vote for Issue 46

Issue 46 is a property tax levy to fund Franklin County Children Services (FCCS). Columbus DSA supports programs that help both children and families and strive for them to be robust. This is what taxes are supposed to be for: direct, material services to the people. FCCS provides a variety of important services including an abuse hotline, mental health counseling, adoption and foster care, and mentorship services. Columbus DSA has not officially endorsed Issue 46, but we recommend a YES vote to provide funding to FCCS. 

Recommended “YES” vote for Issue 47

Issue 47 is a sales tax levy providing funds to improve public transportation in the Columbus area with the Central Ohio Transport Authority (COTA) and LINKUS. More accessible and widespread public transportation is vital to driving demand away from automobiles. This would reduce pollution, help the climate, make roads and sidewalks safer. Too many of our neighbors have died while simply walking or biking city streets due to cars. The proposed funds would also be used for sidewalks, greenways, and bike paths, making our city more accessible and providing alternatives to personal cars. Columbus DSA wants to see our city thrive, and this is one way to do that while helping the world too. While we have not officially endorsed Issue 47, we recommend a YES vote on Issue 47 to fund COTA/LINKUS.  

No endorsement for President

There are no candidates for President who are fighting for working-class power on Ohio’s ballot. Donald Trump and Kamala Harris; at the end of the day, these are our options for the presidential election. These are also two candidates Columbus DSA cannot and will not endorse. We have already seen the disastrous consequences of a Trump presidency, and while a Harris White House may be less disastrous than another Trump term, Harris has not done nearly enough to earn Columbus DSA’s endorsement. She refuses to end weapon shipments to Israel despite their ongoing genocide of Palestinians and violent invasion of Lebanon. She has withdrawn support for Medicare For All – which she supported in her 2020 presidential run – and has recommitted to increased oil drilling and supporting fracking. Harris has made no commitment to ending the massive wealth disparity between rich and poor, and she has done little to fight corporate power in her time in office. 

Ohio is not even considered a “battleground” state anymore due to the abject failure of the Ohio Democrats to offer Ohio workers anything of value, so considerations of “tactical voting” are entirely worthless. Besides, we are not blind to the fact that Democrats are not working to save us from the corporate-fascist alliance that is building to take power. In many ways, they have aided and abetted it, and this nation is now at a point where half-measures are no longer good enough. 

Therefore, we offer no recommendations for the Presidential race. Members should choose for themselves the best course of action in this race. 

No endorsement in the Senate race

As with the presidential race, we cannot extend an endorsement to either of Ohio’s Senate candidates. Bernie Moreno has been involved in several lawsuits from former employees for discrimination and wage theft. Despite being an immigrant himself, he supports the mass deportation of immigrants, who are just working people just trying to make a living. He has also spoken against bodily autonomy, complaining that women over 50 should not care whether or not we have a right to an abortion. Sherrod Brown has a long history of support for working people and unions, but the majority of his policy focus is on trade, which often favors business owners over workers. These policies often harm working people in other countries for the profit of American big business. While he did vote to send humanitarian aid to the Palestinians in Gaza, he has failed to call for a ceasefire to end the genocide, voting again and again to send Israel military funding instead. While Brown may do less harm than Moreno in the long run, Columbus DSA cannot endorse lukewarm support for working people and failure to stand up against genocide. We offer no recommendations for the Senate race, and members should choose for themselves the best course of action in this race. Furthermore, the Senate should be abolished.

Recommendation for Supreme Court Candidates

Melody Stewart, Michael Donnelly, & Lisa Forbes 

The Ohio Supreme Court has been held under a Republican stranglehold for 40 over years. While many decisions over this time have shown that they are inadequate to be in such a position of power, there have been a few over the past 2 years and some coming up that are why we are recommending Melody Stewart, Michael Donnelly, & Lisa Forbes. One, we endorsed Issue 1(reasoning above), the Republicans on the Supreme Court have shown that they will do nothing to stop their friends, like Frank LaRose, Mike Dewine and other Republicans officials in the state from drawing unconstitutional maps, putting incorrect language on the ballot, to confuse voters and blatant voter suppression tactics, like allowing someone to drop off your ballot at a Dropbox. The Ohio Reproductive Freedom Amendment established a clear framework protecting everyone’s right to access abortion, but it is up to our court system to make sure that this amendment doesn’t just become a meaningless piece of paper. We need justices that will enforce the amendment, not ignore it like they have with anti-gerrymandering legislation. We would also like to have Supreme Court justices that do not change the definitions of words to benefit corporate America. 

by Anonymous

Editor’s Note: An abridged version of this article previously appeared in SUNY Geneseo’s student newspaper, The Lamron. Republished with permission.

Those in administrative positions will never be able to create a sense of community. University bureaucrats imposing policies and procedures onto the general university membership does not allow for a space for an open, united community. Moreover, administrators cannot create a community when the consequence of civic disobedience is institution-sanctioned violence. 

The New York Times estimates that “3,100 people have been arrested or detained on campuses across the country” since April 18, 2024, for their involvement in protesting over the inexcusable mass slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza. This comes after an Associated Press article in January of this year stated, “more than 1,230 people have been charged” for their involvement in the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol Attack. 

I find it astonishing that more students/university members have been arrested than attempted insurrectionists. It is outright reprehensible that most arrests were made on peaceful demonstrators. A statement from the Human Rights Institute at Columbia University even mentioned that “The NYPD said that protesters were, ‘peaceful, offered no resistance whatsoever, and were saying what they wanted to say in a peaceful manner.’” Most individuals arrested broke no actual laws but violated unjust, undemocratic campus policies.

Last semester, when I was a student at the University at Buffalo, I witnessed the brutal arrest of fifteen people. The demonstration was peaceful, but despite this, UB called in several different police departments, roughly eighty law enforcement officers, to disperse and arrest the protesters. The officers then turned to the student bystanders and pushed us into the nearby buildings. During this process, officers ripped a student’s hijab off and attempted to use intimidation tactics and language to corral us inside. 

Long after the detained protesters were shipped off using university buses, a smaller police presence remained. Days later, students organized a vigil, which caused part of the campus to be completely shut down, and undercover officers walked amongst grieving individuals. To what point will it be acceptable to call out these colleges for what they are? Antidemocratic hedge funds with at least one functional library.

Colleges and universities nationwide, including Geneseo, are passing tyrannical policies that further limit students’ right to expression and organization. I find it hard to believe these policies would have been rushed through had the protests in the spring been about anything other than universities’ complicity in their investments in war profiteering and, subsequently genocide. Based on the SUNY Board of Trustees’ Rules on the Maintenance of Public Order, students’ right to organize has never been protected. The ability to have a right to freedom of expression means nothing if the right to organize collectively is effectively nullified. 

SUNY has a principle called “Shared Governance,” where policies and decisions are supposed to be worked on not just by administrators, and to be more transparent. While good in theory, it is deeply and seemingly purposely flawed. This only continues the cycle of undemocratic behavior of the university apparatus. According to Geneseo’s Policy on Policies, “All College policies require the approval of the President’s Cabinet. If the policy materials affect student life, it must be approved by the College Council. Such approval should be obtained after the policy is approved by the Cabinet.” This is absurd. Firstly, the Governor appoints members of the College Council. Secondly, it effectively makes the College Council just a rubber stamp. Only one student, the Student Association President, is on the College Council. This is not a good representation of student life. 

I believe that proposed policies related to student life should be discussed with students before they are implemented. Allowing the proposed policy to be discussed and voted on by the Student Senate would increase much-needed transparency at Geneseo. Given the recent slew of policies passed and approved directly related to student rights and responsibilities, it further proves that administrators are worried about students organizing together, which is why to allow more ways of accessible collaboration, rather than separation with a false sense of transparency. 

The lack of accessible transparency is an ongoing problem not just at Geneseo. The President of Monroe Community College (MCC) decided it would be best to supply public safety officers with long guns in the case of an emergency. It was not adequately announced, and it took an article from a local news company that put it on most students’ radar. Students immediately wrote emails to the administration and the college president about their concerns about this matter. One administrator mentioned that there were “already enough meetings” about the matter and that students should have attended them. 

The three meetings in question were mostly inaccessible to the general student population. The first meeting was held in a dorm building. MCC is overwhelmingly a commuter school, with the vast majority of the student population living off campus. How is holding a meeting in a key-card-access-only building accessible to the campus environment? The second meeting was held during a monthly MCC Board of Trustees meeting. Students are not permitted to speak at the meeting without requesting ahead of time. Meeting agendas are posted before, but many students are unaware of the importance of the Board since it is not effectively communicated. 

The third meeting, like the Board of Trustees, was poorly planned. It was here that the Student Government Association was asked to pass a resolution supporting the purchase of long guns. Again, there was no prior discussion that the topic would be discussed, and also the “speak to the senate” section is before resolutions are voted on. If students were not properly informed about the resolutions, how is it fair to speak beforehand? 

If colleges and universities nationwide truly claim to stand for the ideals of diversity, equity, and inclusion, they need to start being more equitable and inclusive. Transparency without inclusivity and diversity is not equity. Transparency without inclusivity and diversity is not equity. If colleges intend to be and continue to be purposely inaccessibly transparent after demands of change, then they are outwardly oppressive.

Student movements may have different main goals, but all eventually boil down to the struggle for democracy. Despite what colleges and university administrators claim about their democratic-adjacent systems, none of that matters if students do not have the right to organize together. We as students may have a student government, but that isn’t enough. We need a student union. A union to protect us while we organize to call out the undemocratic and unjust rules that limit our rights to freedom of peaceful expression. 

Currently, these structures and systems incentivize us to be competitive, not collaborative with each other. Clubs and organizations may foster small communities, but not a united community. Administrators across the country have seen what happens when students are united. Meaningful change happens when students are united. If we want to protect and enhance our rights, we must unite and demand our colleges to be democratic, not bureaucratic. Accessible transparency is worth fighting for. Expressing and organizing ourselves is worth fighting for. Demanding democracy is worth fighting for. We the students deserve nothing less.

The post ON-CAMPUS DEMOCRACY DOES NOT EXIST first appeared on Rochester Red Star.

Seattle DSA Housing Justice Working Group statement written by Tom Barnard

On September 19th, the Seattle City Council finally unveiled its alternative to I-137 after refusing to act earlier to put it on the November ballot. Clearly trying to subvert the newly created Seattle Social Housing Developer (SSHD), the council created an alternative which results in significantly less funding, contains methods to keep the developer from accessing that funding, and creates a bureaucratic process designed to erect operational roadblocks. 

The council’s alternative cuts funding for new housing from approximately $50 million/yr to a maximum of $10 million/yr, and then sunset in five years. This would sharply curtail the number of units that could be purchased or built, setting the SSHD up to fail. 

Worse yet, instead of creating a new excess compensation tax aimed at the richest companies in the City, it would raid existing funds from the JumpStart payroll expense tax, most of which is currently earmarked for other affordable housing projects limited to people making less than 80% of the area median income (AMI). This not only deprives other essential social services of funds, but also forces the SSHD to compete for those funds with other affordable housing nonprofits. During public comment, spokespeople from the Low Income Housing Institute and Plymouth Housing urged the council to vote “no” on the alternative.

In fact, the Council’s option would not create social housing at all, as incomes for the housing units would be capped at 80% AMI. As specified in I-135, Social housing is a mixed-income housing model in which wealthier tenants, at 120% AMI, subsidize the rents of those making less, with rents permanently capped at 30% of residents’ income. 

Council members engaged in various attempts at rhetorical subterfuge by describing the alternative as “proof of concept” for social housing, which in fact it is not. Sponsor Maritza Rivera claimed their alternative, “balances the need for innovation with the need for accountability” without giving “a blank check to yet another new agency that does not have the experience creating housing.” And after doing everything they could to keep it from the November ballot, Councilmember Rob Saka claimed that having two competing measures on the ballot was “simply good governance … centering choice [and] optionality.”

The fact is that the Seattle City Council and its real estate backers who fueled their rise to power are attempting to keep in place a housing system which does work for the vast majority of Seattle renters. Tenants face ever increasing rental rates that beggar them, from developments owned by Wall Street dark money investors whose only interest is a maximum return on investment. Seattle DSA’s Housing Justice Working Group believes that housing is a human right and we stand in solidarity with House our Neighbors and coalition partners in opposition to the Council’s alternative.

Seattle voters will not be fooled. The idea of social housing is on an upswing, from the recent King County workforce housing initiative, to ongoing discussions at the state level, to Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s brand new legislation that will establish and fund federal social housing. SDSA’s successful effort to get the signatures necessary to place I-137 on the ballot will need to follow up later this year with a vigorous effort to turn out the vote for the February ballot.

To get involved in the fight to fund social housing, join us at the Let’s Build Social Housing Prop 1A Field Kickoff. Join your fellow social housing supporters to learn about how we’re going to win Prop1A (formerly I-137) at the February 11th, 2025 ballot. We’ll have a couple activities, refreshments, and an update from House Our Neighbors and campaign field staff about the strategy to win funding for social housing at the ballot with your help. Hope to see you all there!

Saturday, November 9 from 5:30 – 7pm PST at 800 Hiawatha Pl S. Seattle, WA 98144

RSVP: https://mobilize.us/s/NvTOuZ

The post Seattle DSA Will Always Stand with Social Housing appeared first on Seattle Democratic Socialists of America.

The Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee is providing crucial lessons for unions and organizing everywhere. It might be an example of labor’s best bet.

The post EWOC Is Modeling a Path Forward for Labor appeared first on EWOC.

The Labor Branch Organizing Committee wants to share some reflections and opinions about the TCDSA Convention, and also invite you to an important labor event. On one hand, DSA union activists were understandably disappointed that our labor priority proposal did not make it in the top three priorities of the TCDSA Convention. On the other […]

You make the most impact in your organizing campaign by talking with your co-workers, but what about introverts? How can they organize?

The post Workplace Organizing Tips for Introverts appeared first on EWOC.

This is a transformative election for the City of Portland, which will select the first cohort of leaders for the brand new city government. Portland DSA’s two amazing candidates will come ready to fight for social and economic justice, offering a fresh vision for Portland following years of rule by candidates committed to regressive policies.

City government has a tremendous amount of power over critical issues like housing, public safety, climate resilience, and more. It’s time for a city that prioritizes the needs of its citizens over downtown developers who live in the suburbs.

Endorsement, Green Lights, Red Lights, and Renter’s Bill of Rights

Endorsed (Rank #1)

Portland DSA’s two endorsed candidates, Tiffany Koyama Lane & Mitch Green, will be listed first — with a “#1” symbol and additional details about our endorsement. We think you should rank them number one in Districts 3 and 4!

Preferred Candidate/Green Light

Portland DSA’s preferred candidates rose to the top through an internal process that included a mock election, extensive research by Portland DSA’s Socialists in Office Committee, as well as a member forum.

Renter’s Bill of Rights: A house icon indicates green light candidates who have signed the Renter’s Bill of Rights.

DSA Member: A rose icon indicates green light candidates who are also members of Portland DSA. Join us!

District 1

For District 1, Portland DSA has greenlighted six candidates and encourages you to rank all of them. None were endorsed by the chapter:

District 2

For District 2, Portland DSA has greenlighted six candidates and encourages you to rank all of them. None were endorsed by the chapter:

*Jonathan Tasini is a member of Portland DSA. We regret the error.

District 3

For District 3 Portland DSA has greenlighted six candidates and encourages you to rank all of them. It includes Tiffany Koyama Lane who Portland DSA endorsed!

Rank Tiffany Koyama Lane #1 on your ballot! Portland DSA was proud to endorse her earlier this year. We have been out non-stop knocking doors and calling voters for Tiffany. Teacher Tiffany is a leader in the Portland Association of Teachers and their successful strike last November. Tiffany comes from a background of collective action based in the labor movement. We consider her election to validate the struggles of educators that were raised in that strike. Nike put their executive in as chair of the school board, we are striking back and putting a union teacher on City Council.

District 4

For District 4 Portland DSA has greenlighted five candidates and encourages you to rank all of them. It also includes Mitch Green who Portland DSA endorsed!

Rank Mitch Green #1 on your ballot! Portland DSA was proud to endorse Mitch earlier this year. We have been out non-stop knocking doors and calling voters for him. Mitch is a mainstay of Portland DSA, picket lines, and karaoke bars. He’s been a member for six years and has served as our treasurer. Mitch is an open, proud socialist who wears his membership on his sleeve.

Mayor

For Mayor we do not have an endorsed candidate and were only able to pick 4 from the list:

Red Light / Do Not Rank

The following is our list of candidates we encourage members not to rank at all on their ballot. These are candidates who were endorsed by the Portland Police Association (police union) and United for Portland / the Portland Metro Chamber (formally known as the Portland Business Alliance). Some are vitriolically opposed to the Renters Bill of Rights. Others are critics of the teachers’ union. None of them belong on your ballot. Portland DSA is supportive of the Don’t Rank Rene movement and we want it to be clear which candidates have stood against our movement and its demands like Jesse Cornett and Jon Walker.

Many candidates for the new Portland city government are not listed in the Portland DSA’s voters guide. Voters might consider ranking these candidates to fill out the ballot if they run out of DSA-endorsed or preferred candidates to rank. Filling out your ballot helps to keep Red Light (Do Not Rank) candidates out of office.

Made it to the end? WOW. Ready to take action and secure a pro-working class majority on Portland City Council? Take the pledge here and join our movement!

When I was canvassing for Jovanka Beckles’s State Senate campaign (Senate District 7) in late September, I spoke with a woman in north Oakland who was concerned that rents in her neighborhood might get too high for long-time residents to stay. It was, she said, that mix of new and older neighbors that made the area feel special in Oakland and, for her, like home. My canvassing partner and I assured her that Jovanka has consistently used her political office to fight for working-class tenants like her.     

Many of the East Bay DSA canvassers who went out that afternoon for Jovanka heard the same thing from neighbors:  thanks that we were the first people to knock on their doors to tell them about a statewide race. 

Active Champion

The DSA campaign for Jovanka has reached voters across the East Bay and has activated new members in the process. We’ve spoken to residents’ concerns by talking with them about our chapter’s campaigns, from our demands that local government divest from Israeli apartheid to our advocacy for fair schedules for transit workers. That integration is possible because Jovanka has consistently been an active champion of all these causes as an elected socialist and as a member of our chapter. 

When I spoke with an Oakland resident in July who was concerned about the unfolding genocide in Gaza, I could tell her that Jovanka has been an avowed supporter of the Palestinian cause and that our chapter was collecting signatures for a local divestment campaign, which the voter eagerly signed. For our canvass focused on labor, we could easily transition from talking with a neighbor about Jovanka’s successful effort to raise the minimum wage as a city councilor in Richmond to asking whether they wanted to organize in their workplace. When we talked with voters about her work as a transit board member, we could tell them about our chapter’s campaign to work alongside Jovanka and the transit workers union (ATU 192) to demand fair and humane schedules for bus operators.    

Talking with neighbors works

Talking at the door about how our campaigns align with Jovanka’s vision helps bring our members and new organizers to our events. At our last two canvasses, I partnered with new members who had joined our chapter within the last month. Talking with neighbors about our work also helps those members see the scope of our chapter’s organizing. 

For canvassers and canvass-ees, Jovanka’s corporate-free campaign starts the conversation. It also sharply distinguishes her from her opponent, Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguín. Arreguín has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from real estate lobbyists, a correctional officers union, PG&E and Uber. Jovanka, on the other hand, helped win millions for the community from Chevron, which has a refinery in Richmond. While Arreguín, who proudly took a pro-Israel lobby trip in 2022, has loudly opposed any ceasefire resolution from Berkeley City Council, Jovanka has stood firm in her support for an end to US complicity in the genocide.

Whether in Gaza or in our own East Bay senate district, Jovanka has consistently supported just causes that align with our chapter’s organizing. We can confidently tell neighbors like that resident in north Oakland that she’ll keep fighting against the root causes of displacement and for social services that empower the working class. 

Bay Area DSA members (and those who aren’t yet members!) can join our next canvass for Jovanka and our other endorsed candidates on the morning of Sunday, November 3.  

You can contribute to Jovanka’s corporate-free campaign here.

As we near the November election, California DSA and our local chapters have been ramping up efforts for our Affordable Rent-Controlled Housing (ARCH) campaign. But we’re not the only ones intensifying our campaign. Over the weekend, deceptive text messages were sent to residents of Los Angeles implying that DSA Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Tenants Union do not support Prop 33. Don’t buy the landlord lies!

The ARCH campaign supports Prop 33, which would overturn a 1995 law that drastically limits local rent control, and Prop 5, which would make it much easier to build public housing and infrastructure for middle to low income tenants. There is less than a month left to organize toward a huge victory for renters and there are several ways you can get involved.

A Digital Day of Action

On Wednesday, October 16th, California DSA and our members across the state will be engaged in a “digital day of action” where we’ll be reposting content from California DSA and our chapters, as well as sharing our own stories and content with hashtags like #YesOnProp33
, #YesOnProp5, #StopLandlordLies, and #TenantsAgreeYesOn33. It’s one of the easiest things that we can do to spread the word to our friends and followers about the importance of these ballot measures and the transformative effects they would have.

Landlords are well aware that passing Prop 33, in particular, is a first step in shifting power away from the owner class and into the hands of the working class so they are spending well over 100 million dollars to stop it. 

Take a moment today to spread the word and join our day of action!

Join in with the toolkit here!

October 1st Virtual Kickoff

California DSA’s ARCH Campaign is doing our part to generate grassroots enthusiasm. Over 60 people participated in an October 1st virtual organizing meeting and heard San Francisco DSA member Dean Preston, a long-time tenant/rent control advocate running for re-election to the Board of Supervisors, speak powerfully about the history of Costa-Hawkins (the law Prop 33 repeals) and why we need Prop 33 now. Everyone attending participated in small groups to organize activities in their areas.

Chapters running canvasses

Building on that momentum, DSA chapters around the state participated in a Day of Action on October 5th to canvass hundreds of doors. Members hit the doors in North Central Valley, San Diego, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Richmond.  Chapters expanded their door-knocking this past weekend. Not surprisingly for an initiative campaign at this stage, the latest group contacted was largely undecided. But voters expressing support far exceeded those currently opposed. That’s significant because of the onslaught of anti-33 ads saturating our screens.

Join the ARCH Campaign!

There’s still timeto help win Justice for Renters. Reach out to your local chapter, send an email to statecommittee@californiadsa.org; or check out the California DSA website for more information about our ballot measure campaign. The entire working class will benefit if you do, and you’ll have bragging rights if Props 5 and 33 pass.