Arlington City Council voted 5-4 against reinstating its anti-discrimination ordinance following months of delays and debate over the inclusion of LGBTQ protections.
The vote included a proposed clause that would suspend any section of the rules in violation of federal grant requirements as determined by a court order or legal opinion from the state or federal attorney general.
That language was added in response to concerns that the city could lose federal funding with the ordinance on the books.
The decision came after about an hour of public comments in which 41 people asked the council to reinstate protections and 11 spoke against the ordinance.
Council members Mauricio Galante, Raul Gonzalez, Rebecca Boxall, Long Pham and Bowie Hogg voted to continue the suspension of protections indefinitely.
Galante’s vote was contrary to a Dec. 3 declaration to KERA News and Arlington Report, when he said he intended to vote in favor of reinstating the ordinance because he knew that’s what constituents wanted.
He said at the time his primary concern was the wording of the ordinance and its potential to cost the city federal grant funds. Following the meeting Tuesday, Galante said he voted against the ordinance because he was confident it could protect federal funds and because it was an example of government overreach.
“There was no consensus on the language that I believe will protect the city, guarantee to protect the federal funds for the people who need it the most, the most vulnerable people,” Galante said.
Mayor Jim Ross and council members Nikkie Hunter, Andrew Piel and Barbara Odom-Wesley voted in favor of reinstating.
“I’m just disappointed right now,” Hunter said after the meeting ended. “I would hope that we can sit down as a council and work out some type of agreement to bring back these protections for everyone in the city — so that everyone feels safe and protected here in the city of Arlington.”
She reiterated that she voted against suspending the ordinance in the first place and has voted against delaying previous votes regarding its potential reinstatement.
After the decision was made, Ross said this would not be the last time the subject appeared before council.
“I respect the decision of this council, and I will continue to work with all to find a solution,” Ross said.
The ordinance saw local and national attention from groups across the political spectrum.
Leigh Ann O’Neill, the chief legal affairs officer for the America First Policy Institute, posted on X the night before the vote that the move to reinstate the ordinance was “bizarre” with federal funding in the balance.
Other groups, such as Texas Values, urged residents to call council members they claimed would vote to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under the ordinance.
Texas Values President Jonathan Saenz urged council members to remove the language.
Among the 11 people who opposed reinstating the ordinance during public comment, a common trend was displeasure with the inclusion of LGBTQ protections and the mention of gender identity rather than the ordinance as a whole.
DeeJay Johannessen, the CEO of the HELP Center for LGBTQ+ Health, previously led his organization through a mailer and television commercial campaign opposing council moves on the ordinance that would have removed those classes from the ordinance.
He emphasized that the ordinance protects not only people who are LGBTQ, but also prohibits discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion or other protected classes. The council’s decision doesn’t just affect people in the LGBTQ community, he said.
Johannessen, who threw his support behind reinstatement, said he was surprised to see a majority of the council vote to not reinstate the ordinance, especially with the inclusion of the new clause meant to protect federal grant money.
“If those were protected, then one has to wonder what the real reason (was) they voted to suspend it, because it wasn’t about federal funding,” Johannessen said after the meeting.
That sentiment was shared by Odom-Wesley. She said the ordinance came after the 2020 death of George Floyd, a reminder that discrimination still exists in America and needs to be addressed.
“We still need that statement today, because even though there are laws on the books, you can’t regulate people’s hearts and you can run into someone who makes you feel like you’re out of place,” she said. “In this caste system in America, we’re all relegated to a rung on the ladder and when you get out of your place there’s always someone to remind you where you belong.”
Boxall and Hogg said they felt the ordinance did not give the city a legal recourse for protections and supported a resolution disavowing discrimination instead.
“We have an ordinance that’s a resolution,” Hogg said. “It’s not really an ordinance because an ordinance without enforcement is not a law.”
Hogg said that the city did not have a documented case of using the ordinance as justification to launch an investigation between 2021 and its suspension in September.
Johannessen said he did not agree with the idea of a resolution.
“Resolutions are for national gardening day, not civil rights,” Johannessen said. “That is offensive.”
Chris Moss is a reporting fellow for the Arlington Report. Contact him at chris.moss@fortworthreport.org.
James Hartley is the Arlington Government Accountability Reporter for KERA News. Got a tip? Email James Hartley at jhartley@kera.org. You can follow James on X @ByJamesHartley.
KERA News is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider making a tax-deductible gift today. Thank you.
