WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SR 9

REQUESTING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO PASS LEGISLATION TO AMEND THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, AND GENDER IDENTITY IN EMPLOYMENT, HOUSING, PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS, EDUCATION, FEDERALLY FUNDED PROGRAMS, CREDIT, AND JURY SERVICE.

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Karl Rhoads

Hawaii urges Congress to amend the Civil Rights Act to ban discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in employment, housing, education, and public services nationwide.

Referred to EIG/JDC.
#federalequalityact #sex #andgenderidentity #sexualorientation
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SR 9

Legislative bill overview

This is a state resolution requesting that the U.S. Congress pass federal legislation amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity across multiple sectors including employment, housing, public accommodations, education, and federally funded programs. The resolution does not itself create law but serves as an expression of Hawaii's legislative preference to the federal government.

Why is this important

Currently, federal civil rights protections do not uniformly cover sexual orientation and gender identity across all these areas, leaving gaps in legal protection that vary by state and sector. Passage of such federal legislation would establish consistent, nationwide anti-discrimination standards and potentially override conflicting state or local laws, affecting millions of Americans in employment, housing, education, and access to services.

Potential points of contention

  • Religious exemptions: Debate over whether religious organizations should be exempt from these protections, balancing religious freedom against civil rights protections
  • Definitional disputes: Disagreement over how to define and apply gender identity protections, particularly regarding issues like bathroom access, sports participation, and healthcare services
  • Federalism concerns: Constitutional and political questions about federal versus state authority to regulate employment, housing, and public accommodations
  • Implementation costs: Concerns about compliance burdens and costs for businesses and institutions to implement new non-discrimination policies
  • Partisan divide: Significant political disagreement, with support typically along progressive-conservative lines regarding LGBTQ+ protections

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.