Two months into the new legislative sessions at the state level and things have gotten uglier since January’s initial roundups of bad bills. While there are several positive things to cheer–and we should–even more concerning legislation impacting libraries has popped up and/or advanced. This mid-March overview of the good, the bad, and the downright ugly is part one of at least two parts; the roundup grew so long that it needed to be broken up.

Before we dive into state legislation, we have to talk about the federal bill proposed by Mary Miller (R-Illinois, fan of Hitler), House Resolution 7661 (H.R. 7661), also known as the “Stop the Sexualization of Children Act.” This is the bill that those of us who’ve been doing anti-book ban work for five years have warned about since 2021, and it’s now here. This bill would ban trans and gender ideology-themed and authored books from public schools receiving funds from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

Despite what the bill says, those wouldn’t be the only targeted books. This would go after any LGBTQ+ books, under the guise that they are “sexually oriented material.” Classroom curriculum would be changed, and history that touches on LGBTQ+ rights would invariably be targeted. While the bill sounds limited to public schools, we know it would impact joint-use public school and public library facilities, and it would absolutely be applied in public libraries as broadly as the right would like. This is the kind of federal-level bill that serves as a permission slip for states to develop even crueler legislation.

If you take one action against book bans right now, make it writing your House Representative, and then both of your Senate Representatives, about the damage this bill would do. It is borne from anti-trans legislation–book banning being one wedge used to prop open that door–and thus, it’s a stepping stone to even worse bills specifically targeting trans, gender fluid, and gender nonconforming folks (and, ultimately, queer people, period).

A few additional points about HR 7661, some of which may be applicable in writing or calling your representative:

• This would override the 13 Freedom to Read bills currently in effect across the country. For a party that insists on states’ rights, the GOP sure loves proposing bills that undermine state rights when it comes to bigotry.

• If you’re in a state with a Freedom to Read bill, writing your state-level representatives would be worthwhile here, too. While they can’t make federal-level decisions, they can and should apply pressure to their colleagues.

• Books that the government deems good and acceptable, per the bill, are sourced from places that align entirely with partisan beliefs and undermine educational philosophy and practices that have worked to bring contemporary life into the classroom. These include Great Books of the Western World (second edition, 1990), published by Encyclopedia Britannica; ‘Classics Every Middle Schooler Should Read’ by Thomas Purifoy, Jr., and published by Compass Classroom; and ‘Classics Every High Schooler Should Read’ by Mary Pierson Purifoy and published by Compass Classroom. One of those sources is from 36 years ago; the other two are from a Christian homeschool curriculum. This is intentional, and it’s meant to scare parents into keeping their children out of public schools so the federal voucher scheme can continue to rob those schools' budgets. Kids from rich families will never be limited in what books they have access to. It’ll be lower and middle class young people denied a full education because they didn’t win the wealth lottery when they were born.

• The chilling effect of H.R. 7661 is the point. That goes whether or not the bill passes. Legislators want librarians and educators scared, so they preemptively pull materials that might be against the law and prevent them from acquiring new material. It is erasure of LGBTQ+ people, period.

• Because this bill would impact an array of educational components–including but not limited to curriculum and student LGBTQ+ clubs–it’s crucial to remember there would be no oversight of this bill either, as the Department of Education effectively dismantled its Office for Civil Rights. You may recall the snarky press release issued by the Department of Education early last year about the book ban hoax. That was a commentary on the dismantling of a lawyer position within the department overseeing discrimination cases related to educational censorship.

• Don’t sit this one–or any other bill–out because of your representatives’ party affiliation. Get what you think on the record. Remind your representatives that the midterms are coming and that they serve you and people like you–they don’t serve at the behest of a political ideology.

While the chances of a bill like this proceeding through the House and the Senate are slim, especially given an unproductive Congress over the last year, they're not zero. This is a crucial moment to practice your civic duties in reaching out to your representatives and having your voice heard. HR 7661 isn’t just about book bans. It’s about silencing and erasing queer people from the American public.

What, exactly, might happen to library workers and educators who are themselves part of the LGBTQ+ community?

We know the answer, even if it’s not spelled out.

Although this next federal-level bill does not relate to book banning or censorship, it’s worth mentioning here because it does affect American citizens. Throughout the last several months, public libraries across the country have been forced to halt passport services. This has been especially detrimental to libraries in small and rural communities, where the public library may be the only place to go through the passport process (librarian Katie McClain does a great job explaining why this decision may have come at this moment in history). The cessation of passport services only impacts public libraries operating as 501(c)3 nonprofits; public libraries operating as a unit of local government are not impacted, at least not yet.

Senate Bill 3733, the Amending Passports Act, is a crucial piece of legislation that would reinstate passport services at affected public libraries. The bill is bipartisan, and the cosponsors represent the states hardest hit by the ending of passport services–Pennsylvania and Connecticut. Whether or not you live in either state or utilize a nonprofit library whose services are impacted, this is another bill for which you should write your representatives in support. You could tie this bill into other pending federal legislation–i.e., the SAVE Act–and how, by decreasing the number of places where people can legally acquire their passports, the plan to disenfranchise voters becomes clearer and clearer.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: State-Level Bills

Building this document involved reviewing as many bills as possible across as many states as possible that directly impacted libraries. I focused on proposed legislation that would require material censorship and on those that would reduce either/both library autonomy and budgets. This is not comprehensive, as it simply cannot be.

In the research, at least 16 states had bad/ugly bills still in play. There were seven states with some good news to share–either the bill itself was good, or the concerning bill did not get the legs that far-right politicians and “parental rights” advocates were hoping. Some of these bills will be new ones; others are updates on bills presented earlier this year here and here.

Let’s talk about seven states’ worth of concerning news, followed by three states’ worth of good news. The next edition of the newsletter will fill out the remaining state updates. As always, if you see your state here and the bill of concern is still alive, get in touch with your representatives. A quick email or phone call is all that’s needed–state your name, your town, and why you support or oppose the bill in question. You can always do more, including talking about the impact on you or your family personally, or sharing links to research that supports your perspective. That amount of work isn’t necessary, but it can be really beneficial for you and the representatives you're contacting.

The Bad and Ugly

Alabama: Senate Bill 26

Recall from earlier this year that SB 26 in Alabama would change how library boards in the state operate. As it is, public library boards are appointed by a governing body in the library’s respective city or county. SB 26 would continue this common practice, but it would give those appointing government bodies the power to instruct the library board on what to do. That is, the library board would serve at the “pleasure” of the body that appoints them, rather than serving at the will of the taxpayers or in the best interests of the library.

The bill passed the Senate in mid-February. It has been placed on the House calendar for March 10, but it’s quite a ways down the list of bills. As of writing this update–on March 11–there is no update from the House.

Arizona: House Bill 2008

This bill would ban public schools from financially supporting their library workers through membership in any professional association. The wording of this bill is a reminder of how much the right has simply bought into the idea that library workers don’t deserve to be professionals or have their skills as professionals developed:

Dollars to donuts that police have never seen state legislators fixate so much on their professional organizations or development as librarians across the country have.

As of writing, this has passed the House and is now sitting on the Senate consent calendar.

Arizona: Senate Bill 1435

Not satisfied with banning library workers from receiving workplace support to be part of a professional organization, Arizona’s Republicans also want to criminalize librarians. This bill, like others that have both been proposed and passed in other red states, would impose criminal penalties on library workers who provide “sexually explicit” materials to those under the age of 18. Library workers could be charged with a felony for having such materials–that do not exist except in the minds of the genital obsessed party!–in their libraries. SB 1435 targets public libraries and public school libraries and requires librarians at these institutions to sign a document acknowledging their knowledge of this law.

The bill passed the Senate and was on the House calendar for this week.

Florida: Senate Bill 1692/House Bill 1119

This set of bills, one in the House and one in the Senate, is a resurrection of one that died in last year’s legislative session. School districts would no longer need to read materials in full to decide they’re against the law and need to be banned. HB 1119 is a continuation of the Florida government’s insistence that it doesn’t need to follow the federal standard for defining obscenity through the Miller Test. The 60-some words of the Miller Test repeat only one phrase, and it’s the one Florida lawmakers keep trying to destroy: “as a whole.”

As before, it serves as another reminder that the so-called claims of seeking “local control” over library materials are a lie. The state wants to decide what you and your children have access to, and with HB 1119, it aims to do so as quickly as possible.

SB 1692 has only been introduced in the Senate. It’s likely not going to progress further, and that’s not because it’s entirely dead. It is because the House’s version of the bill has both passed the House and has been received by the Senate.

Georgia: Senate Bill 74

It’s another librarian criminalization bill. Georgia’s legislation targets public, school, and academic libraries and removes library workers from protections against obscenity laws. This particular criminalization bill goes so far as to provide protections for library workers who sniff out so-called “inappropriate” books and seek their removal.

The bill has passed the Senate and is gaining support in the House.

Idaho: House Bill 715

HB 715 would require that library boards get the approval of the city or county they serve to hire or fire a director, which begs the question: what is the point of having the board do that in the first place? This effectively makes the person in charge of the library director whoever is overseeing the city or county, rather than the library board itself.

HB 715 passed the House and is on to the Senate. It’s also not the first time that the legislator who proposed this bill has done so. He’s obsessed with taking away local boards' autonomy. Seeing bills like this is a reminder of the actions happening at the federal level–a lot of speaking about “state rights” while proposing legislation that imposes federal standards on those states–happens at the local level, too. This is a great example.

Idaho: House Bill 795 and House Bill 796

One of the ways that I think about legislation is comparatively: which bills are like bills in other states. That’s how I’m able to remember as many as I do, and it’s a way of tracking patterns. HB 796 attempts to do what others across the country have been trying to do, especially this legislative session: redefine the terms of the federal obscenity standard, the Miller Test.

Both HB 795 and HB 796 attempt to use the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ginsberg v. New York to define what constitutes inappropriate material for minors; Ginsburg predates the Miller Test. This is what Florida’s legislature has been trying to do, particularly in its arguments for why it should be allowed to decide what books can or cannot be made available to those under 18. The bills themselves, given how in-depth they attempt to go in defining “sexually explicit,” would be banned from schools. Of note is that HB 796 makes exceptions for the Bible and Torah–those books aren’t sexually explicit nor inappropriate for minors.

Both of these bills are in a House committee for state affairs.

Idaho: House Bill 819

See the two above bills. It’s another attempt to dismantle the Miller Test standard. What makes this one different–and even more concerning–is that it would set two different standards for materials. In private schools and private libraries, the Miller Test stands–that is, materials are considered as a whole, before they’re removed. For public schools and public libraries, the Miller Test is being dismantled entirely–nothing with “sexually explicit content” may be allowed in the library, regardless of whether or not the material meets the definition of obscene per the Miller Test.

This ultimately tackles whether or not materials in libraries are “government speech,” suggesting the materials in public collections are while those in private collections are not. There’s little question this bill wants to take advantage of the decision made in the Fifth Circuit last year in Little v. Llano County.

This bill was drafted and sent to the State Affairs committee just this week and heard on Friday. It passed in committee and will now move onto the House. Idaho legislators are really, really angling to remove books at an even faster rate than they already have (despite not one, but two lawsuits related to their draconian law). It’s happening fast because they know it’s not going to be popular.

Illinois: Senate Bill 3858

Even though Illinois is a Right to Read state–the first in the nation to pass such a law, in fact–that doesn’t mean that legislators with partisan allegiance aren’t attempting to pass bad bills. This bill would require schools to provide an online catalog of all their collections for parents to access easily. It would also require schools to provide materials opt-outs for students and make it so students who have parents requesting they do not access certain materials never get access to those materials.

On the surface, this bill looks fine. In practice, yikes.

Illinois hardly has enough school library paraprofessionals across the state, let alone certified school librarians. The time and effort required for this kind of cataloging are untenable, especially when considering the kinds of materials that may be digital and not already cataloged (think, for example, of a link to Project Gutenberg’s materials available on school library computers).

It also places a lot of responsibility on the shoulders of said paraprofessionals and professionals for monitoring the materials students access. This kind of legislation aims to put up barriers not just for parents who want to opt out; it’s intended to make the work so difficult that schools elect to either remove materials that might cause a stir or simply shut access down altogether. It also begs the question of the legal ramifications that might arise if Johnny browses a book his dad said he can’t have while in the library, and the library worker is busy teaching a class or is not in the library to babysit. That’s not to say we need to monitor what’s happening with any technology in the library, particularly when it comes to ebooks or digital audiobooks.

Bills like these that require school libraries to make their entire catalog easy to access are meant to facilitate censorship rather than combat it. See, for example, this particular group of book banners who target those catalogs to start complaints.

SB 3585 is in a Senate committee.

Illinois: House Bill 4241

If you recall the Texas READER Act, which included a requirement that book vendors apply ratings to every book they sell to public schools in the state of Texas, you may also recall that those who filed a lawsuit against the law were victorious in their court case. Requiring vendors to apply ratings to books they sell was deemed unconstitutional.

Illinois republicans introduced a bill that would require publishers supplying books to schools in the state to assign a rating to each book. Those ratings would then need to be made readily available for anyone to peruse, and the bill would require the state to develop a one-sheet guide to what those ratings mean.

It’s a bill intended to have a chilling effect, and it’s a bill that would run afoul of the Constitution. Books already have age ratings on them, too–it’s something anyone who is so invested can look up for themselves. The state doesn’t need to develop a tool when all a person needs to do is look at the book or go to Amazon.

HB 4241 is sitting in a House committee, where it will likely remain.

The Good!

I mentioned above that I’d talk about two different states. The truth is, I’m going to cover three because it fits nicely with one of the other bills–even if it’s not necessarily one we’ll see any movement on.

Alaska: Senate Bill 238

An Alaskan legislator introduced a freedom-to-read bill this year, SB 238. The bill was read for the first time in early February, and testimony on it was welcomed on March 6. Spend some time reading through the testimony because the vast majority of those who wrote in support this bill.

Right now, no more action has been taken, but keep an eye on this one. Alaska’s freedom to read proposal was not among those I had my eye on this year, and the only reason it hit my radar was that I found a right-wing news outlet blasting it.

Florida: House Bill 6031

This is the bill I referenced in the introductory text to the good news. Indeed, this is a very lightweight freedom-to-read bill proposed in Florida by Jennifer “Rita” Harris, a Democrat.

What this piece of legislation would do is undo all the damage the state is causing through its book banning. Parents, state officials, and school boards would lose power. So, while there’s no building of protections, this takes the form of a right-to-read bill that removes all the provisions that have allowed Florida to become a leader in literary and educational censorship.

Will this bill pass? Likely not. It has progressed to a House subcommittee, but nothing has happened since mid-January. Regardless of the bill’s outcome, this is a pretty important signal by a legislator in the state that she’s paying attention–and that she wants an end to the fixation on books, rather than actual issues in the state.

Wyoming: Defeat of House Bill 10 and House Bill 72

Talk of an upcoming extreme bill in Wyoming that would dismantle young adult sections in public and school libraries began last summer. It seemed potentially dead before it began, but legislators went ahead and filed two bills to create widespread censorship and criminalize librarianship.

The good news is that on-the-ground advocacy, which began months before the legislative session began, has led to both of these bills being dead. This is news worth celebrating because so many republican legislators were eager to push these through and make Wyoming as anti-library as neighboring Idaho.

What stood out to me with this story is that just one day before the bills were dead, one of the Laramie County school districts voted to retain The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian in the library. The committee reasoned that they could find no way the book rose to the level of “sexually explicit” as being defined by the school board. They believed it might upset some people, but they couldn’t, in good conscience, do something that wasn’t right.

That felt like a forerunner to the state’s bill, and where and how “sexually explicit” is a meaningless term being wielded to mean “what I, a person with some degree of power, don’t like.”

These victories matter. The efforts by those in Wyoming, as well as those beyond the state to bolster those messages are commendable. These victories are also a reminder that we don’t write off states for their voting histories or records. “Red” states have people who deserve rights and who deserve access to fully funded, accessible libraries. “Red” states are the way they are thanks in no small part to gerrymandering, to voter suppression, and to voter disenfranchisement. Wyoming may not see the same level of this behavior as, say, Florida or Texas, but its history as a haven for the ultra-wealthy plays a crucial role in how it is today.

Part two will cover the remaining good, bad, and ugly bills on my list, and, if appropriate, will update anything noted here.