OnTheIssuesLogo

Mark Amodei on Civil Rights

 

 


No same-sex marriage; no civil unions

Q: Should Nevada recognize civil unions between same-sex couples?
  • A: No.
  • Q: Should Nevada restrict marriage to a union only between a man and a woman?
  • A: Yes.
    Source: Nevada Congressional 2002 National Political Awareness Test , Nov 1, 2002

    Support affirmative action in schools & workplaces

    Affirmative Action:

    Q: Should race, ethnicity or gender be taken into account in state agencies' decisions on: College and university admissions?

    A: Yes.

    Q: Public employment?

    A: Yes.

    Q: State contracting?

    A: Yes.

    Source: Nevada Congressional 2002 National Political Awareness Test , Nov 1, 2002

    Voted YES on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.

    Congressional Summary:
      Amends the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) to add or expand definitions of several terms used in such Act, including :
    1. "culturally specific services" to mean community-based services that offer culturally relevant and linguistically specific services and resources to culturally specific communities;
    2. "personally identifying information" with respect to a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
    3. "underserved populations" as populations that face barriers in accessing and using victim services because of geographic location, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity; and
    4. "youth" to mean a person who is 11 to 24 years old.

    Opponent's Argument for voting No (The Week; Huffington Post, and The Atlantic): House Republicans had objected to provisions in the Senate bill that extended VAWA's protections to lesbians, gays, immigrants, and Native Americans. For example, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) voted against the VAWA bill because it was a "politically–motivated, constitutionally-dubious Senate version bent on dividing women into categories by race, transgender politics and sexual preference." The objections can be grouped in two broadly ideological areas--that the law is an unnecessary overreach by the federal government, and that it represents a "feminist" attack on family values. The act's grants have encouraged states to implement "mandatory-arrest" policies, under which police responding to domestic-violence calls are required to make an arrest. These policies were intended to combat the too-common situation in which a victim is intimidated into recanting an abuse accusation. Critics also say VAWA has been subject to waste, fraud, and abuse because of insufficient oversight.

    Reference: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act; Bill H.R.11 ; vote number 13-HV055 on Feb 28, 2013

    Ensure disabled access to public pools.

    Amodei co-sponsored Pool SAFE Act

    A BILL to revise certain rules under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) relating to accessible means of entry to pools.

      This Act may be cited as the 'Pool Safety and Accessibility for Everyone Act' or the 'Pool SAFE Act'. Congress finds the following:
    1. One of the purposes of the ADA is to 'provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities'.
    2. The Nation's proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to ensure equality of opportunity and full participation for such individuals.
    3. The ADA recognizes that public accommodations should provide access to their amenities to individuals with disabilities.
    4. It is important for public accommodations to provide access to their amenities, including pools, to individuals with disabilities.
    5. Public accommodations should provide access to their amenities, including pools, in a reasonable, efficient, and expedient manner that accounts for the interests of individuals with disabilities and also considers other legitimate concerns, such as safety and feasibility.
    6. The current regulations for the ADA as the regulations relate to the accessibility of pools at public accommodations, do not reasonably or adequately balance the access needs of individuals with disabilities with other legitimate concerns.
    REVISION OF RULES.
    Source: H.R.203 13-HR0203 on Jan 4, 2013

    Religious objections to GLBT services same as 1960s racism.

    Amodei voted NAY H.Amdt. 1128 to H.R. 5055

    Heritage Action Summary: The Maloney Amendment would ratify President Obama's 2014 executive order barring federal contractors from what it describes as "discrimination" on the basis of "sexual orientation and gender identity" in their private employment policies. In practice, it would have required federal contractors to grant biologically male employees who identify as women unfettered access to women's lockers, showers, and bathrooms.

    Heritage Foundation recommendation to vote NO: (5/25/2016): Congress should not be elevating sexual orientation and gender identity as a protected class garnering special legal privileges, which is the intent of the Maloney Amendment. The Maloney Amendment constitutes bad policy that unnecessarily regulates businesses. It risks undoing longstanding protections in civil rights law and makes clear that the president's orders are not exempt from them.

    ACLU recommendation to vote YES: (5/11/2016): We see today claims to a right to discriminate--by refusing to provide services to LGBT people--based on religious objections. Claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion is not new. In the 1960s, we saw objections to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It's no different today.

    Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to impose those beliefs on others.

    Legislative outcome: Amendment passed by the House 223-195-15 4/26/16; overall bill H.R.5055 failed 112-305-16 on 5/26/2016

    Source: Supreme Court case 16-H5055 argued on May 25, 2016

    2017-18 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Civil Rights: Mark Amodei on other issues:
    NV Gubernatorial:
    Adam Laxalt
    Brian Sandoval
    Dan Schwartz
    Jared Fisher
    Steve Sisolak
    NV Senatorial:
    Bob Beers
    Catherine Cortez Masto
    Danny Tarkanian
    Dean Heller
    Jacky Rosen
    Joe Heck
    Sharron Angle

    Freshman class of 2019:
    "Freshman class" means "not in Congress in January 2017", with exceptions:
    * Special election, so sworn in other than Jan. 2019
    ** Served in Congress in a previous term
    *** Lost recount or general election
    Freshman class of January 2019 (Republicans):
    AZ-8*:Lesko
    CA-39***:Kim
    FL-6:Waltz ; FL-15:Spano ; FL-17:Steube
    GA-7:Woodall
    ID-1**:Fulcher
    IN-4:Baird
    IN-6:Pence
    KS-2:Watkins
    MN-1:Hagedorn ; MN-8:Stauber
    MS-3:Guest
    MT-0*:Gianforte
    NC-9***:Harris
    ND-a:Armstrong
    NM-2***:Herrell
    OH-12*:Balderson ; OH-16:Gonzalez
    OK-1:Hern
    PA-9:Meuser ; PA-11**:Smucker ; PA-12*:Keller ; PA-13:Joyce ; PA-14:Reschenthaler
    SC-4:Timmons
    SD-0:Johnson
    TN-2:Burchett ; TN-6:Rose ; TN-7:Green
    TX-2:Crenshaw ; TX-3:Taylor ; TX-5:Gooden ; TX-6:Wright ; TX-21:Roy ; TX-27*:Cloud
    VA-5:Riggleman ; VA-6:Cline
    WI-1:Steil
    WV-3:Miller
    Freshman class of January 2019 (Democrats):
    AZ-2**:Kirkpatrick ; AZ-9:Stanton
    CA-49:Levin ; CA-10:Harder ; CA-21:Cox ; CA-25:Hill ; CA-39:Cisneros ; CA-45:Porter ; CA-48:Rouda
    CO-2:Neguse ; CO-6:Crow
    CT-5:Hayes
    FL-26:Mucarsel-Powell ; FL-27:Shalala
    GA-6:McBath
    HI-1**:Case
    IA-1:Finkenauer ; IA-3:Axne
    IL-4:Garcia ; IL-6:Casten ; IL-14:Underwood
    KS-3:Davids
    KY-6***:McGrath
    MA-3:Trahan ; MA-7:Pressley
    MD-6:Trone
    ME-2:Golden
    MI-8:Slotkin ; MI-9:Levin ; MI-13:Tlaib ; MI-13*:Jones ; MI-11:Stevens
    MN-2:Craig ; MN-3:Phillips ; MN-5:Omar
    NC-9***:McCready
    NH-1:Pappas
    NJ-2:Van Drew ; NJ-3:Kim ; NJ-7:Malinowski ; NJ-11:Sherrill
    NM-1:Haaland ; NM-2:Torres Small
    NV-3:Lee ; NV-4**:Horsford
    NY-14:Ocasio-Cortez ; NY-11:Rose ; NY-19:Delgado ; NY-22:Brindisi ; NY-25:Morelle
    OK-5:Horn
    PA-4:Dean ; PA-5:Scanlon ; PA-6:Houlahan ; PA-7:Wild ; PA-17*:Lamb
    SC-1:Cunningham
    TX-7:Fletcher ; TX-16:Escobar ; TX-29:Garcia ; TX-32:Allred
    UT-4:McAdams
    VA-2:Luria ; VA-7:Spanberger ; VA-10:Wexton
    WA-8:Schrier
    Abortion
    Budget/Economy
    Civil Rights
    Corporations
    Crime
    Drugs
    Education
    Energy/Oil
    Environment
    Families
    Foreign Policy
    Free Trade
    Govt. Reform
    Gun Control
    Health Care
    Homeland Security
    Immigration
    Jobs
    Principles
    Social Security
    Tax Reform
    Technology
    War/Peace
    Welfare/Poverty



    Candidate Information:
    Main Page
    Profile
    NV politicians
     
    Search for...





    Page last updated: Jun 04, 2020