Cities take the lead: LGBT nondiscrimination policy adoption by local governments.

• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/2047/D20286913

The United States Federal Government has no protections for LGBT people from discrimination in private employment, housing, or public accommodations. The debate has shifted to states and local governments because the national government has not enacted LGBT nondiscrimination legislation. 22 states have sexual orientation and/or gender identity protections, but 28 states lack statewide LGBT policies. This study reports that within these 28 states, 759 cities are covered by LGBT nondiscrimination ordinances of some type. Policies at the city level range from comprehensive LGBT discrimination ordinances to public employment provisions to nonbinding resolutions stating support for LGBT rights. Additionally, some cities are covered by countywide policies, an often overlooked element of local LGBT rights. This research primarily asks: why do some cities enact LGBT nondiscrimination policies while others do not? This study uses a mixed methods model to analyze city and state level political variables that influence local LGBT nondiscrimination policy adoption. The use of logistic regression analysis identifies factors that explain what types of cities are likely to pass LGBT protections. Population size, population density, socioeconomic factors, political ideology, and religious adherence all have a statistically significant impact on LGBT nondiscrimination policy change. Social demographics have mixed results in the model. The percent of unmarried partners has a significant influence, but median age does not. Racial diversity and population growth rate do not have an impact when controlling for population size. Furthermore, the data reveal that the number and nature of local policies varies drastically across states. This study argues that a states political environment is key to understanding the passage of LGBT nondiscrimination laws at the local level, particularly action by state legislatures, the structure of LGBT advocacy networks, and state specific political institutions. This study concludes that the combination of individual city characteristics and state politics impacts the likelihood of a city passing an LGBT nondiscrimination policy. Major policy recommendations include relying on localized, grassroots campaigns by LGBT residents because local residents have the most credibility in local politics. LGBT campaigns help strengthen LGBT communal bonds, particularly in rural America. Another recommendation is maintaining sustained efforts directed toward the legislature in order to keep the issue of LGBT nondiscrimination on the statewide agenda.