Senate bills on transgender bathroom use, pronouns pass through House committees

CHEYENNE—Senate measures dealing with bathroom use by transgender people and preferred pronouns have passed through House committees.

In a 7-1 vote Wednesday morning, the House Judiciary Committee passed Senate File 77, “Compelled speech is not free speech,” which would prohibit the state from requiring its employees to refer to people by their preferred pronouns. Representatives voted in committee to restore the bill to its original version, including penalty language that was removed by the Senate.

“During testimony on the Senate side … they took out a portion of the bill that I think was very, very, very important,” SF 77 sponsor Sen. Lynn Hutchings, R-Cheyenne, told the House Judiciary Committee.

Rep. Laurie Bratten, R-Sheridan, made a motion to add original language back to the bill such that a state employee who had lost their employment due to failure to use a preferred pronoun could seek compensatory damages, reasonable attorney fees and court costs.

“I do not think the state should compel speech, and in addition to that, I think that without (this language), the bill would leave an injured party with no ability to be made whole,” Bratten said. “People can lose their jobs, they can lose grants, they can suffer financial loss. We need to put those teeth back into the bill.”

Bratten further stated that as a former teacher, she wants to protect teachers from losing their job if the government “compels their speech.

Her amendment passed, and only Rep. Ken Chestek, D-Laramie, voted against forwarding the bill to the House floor.

During public comment, Wyoming Equality Director Sara Burlingame told the committee that in the “absence of the state mandating chromosomal or genital checks, all pronouns are preferred pronouns.” She continued that what has served us thus far is “our own good manners, and our own sense of decency.”

“This could lead to bullying and harassment. You may have a preferred pronoun of ‘he’ and ‘him’ … but I, your colleague, am going to choose to call you female,” Burlingame said.

Bratten responded later in the meeting that she feels the state’s “harassment law” already covers Burlingame’s concerns.

Meanwhile, in the House Labor, Health and Social Services Committee on Wednesday, lawmakers voted in favor of Senate File 62, “Restrooms in publicly funded schools-2.”

Bill sponsor Sen. Dan Laursen, R-Powell, explained that the bill would require that students born as female use the girls’ restroom at schools, and that those born as males use a boys’ restroom. Anyone who preferred not to use a group restroom, including transgender students, would be provided with a single-use, separate bathroom.

Earlier in the session, Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie, pointed out that “separate but equal” has not held up in other instances, citing historic civil rights cases concerning race.

On Wednesday, Laursen told representatives that a superintendent in his area was reluctant to encourage local policymaking because of a fear of lawsuits, even though “young ladies had an encounter where there was a male student in the bathroom.”

As it stands, SF 62 includes cause of action and a misdemeanor penalty for school board trustees who violate the bill. When it was first introduced, the bill included a loss of district accreditation for violation, but the Senate removed that portion of the bill. Committee Chairwoman Rep. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams, R-Cody, asked Laursen if the Senate discussed any additional acceptable penalties.

“There weren’t other ideas, I think, that were proposed. They were reluctant to do that,” Laursen replied. “There are lower degrees of accreditation, and I thought that may be valid. … But I worry that the bill might be jeopardized if we put too much penalties in there.”

A Powell mother named Carrie Peters said she is strongly in favor of SF 62, after her daughter was one of the students affected by male students in her school bathrooms.

“Wyoming needs this bill. This is a good bill that protects girls, boys and trans students,” Peters said. “As it currently stands in my district, with no policy, there is absolutely nothing in place to prevent any male from entering female spaces.”

Peters said she and her husband “begged” the local district to enact a local policy three years ago, but the district simply passed a resolution asking for state legislation. 

Santi Murillo, also with Wyoming Equality, spoke against the bill. Murillo said that, if passed, SF 62 would require her, a transgender woman and Laramie basketball coach, to share a restroom with teenage boys.

“At the school where I coach … there are no single-use spaces,” Murillo said. “When I am coaching a basketball tournament for hours and hours and hours, this would force me to use a restroom with teenage boys, which I don’t think would make anybody comfortable. … there are also adult males in there, which is not always comfortable.”

Rep. Mike Yin, D-Jackson, asked how Laursen’s bill would interact with a similar bill, House Bill 72, “Protecting women’s privacy in public spaces,” proposed by Rep. Martha Lawley, R-Worland.

“I think if both passes, it doesn’t really make any sense,” Yin said.

Laursen responded that he has been following Lawley’s bill, but was not up to date on amendments made in the House to HB 72, as it heads to the Senate.

“We did discuss it a little bit. I do know hers is broader,” Laursen said. “I do want to make sure that we have one that comes forward, and that we give our school boards direction.”