LAMALFA'S VOTING RECORD: LGBTQIA+
H.R. 5 — Equality Act (116th Congress, 2019; reintroduced 117th Congress, 2021)
How he voted: Nay (he voted AGAINST the Equality Act.)
Bill Summary: The Equality Act would add sexual orientation and gender identity to federal civil-rights statutes, extending nondiscrimination protections in employment, housing, education, public accommodations, federal funding, and jury service.
Impact: Voting against the bill preserved the status quo in which federal statutes do not explicitly list sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories, leaving nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQIA people dependent on piecemeal court rulings, agency interpretations, or state laws. That can leave LGBTQIA people — especially in states without protections — more vulnerable to discrimination in employment, housing, healthcare, and public services.
LaMalfa's Statement:
After the House passed H.R. 5, the Equality Act, on February 25, 2021, Representative Doug LaMalfa issued a statement expressing his strong opposition to the legislation. He criticized the bill as a "Washington-mandated wokeness" that would have significant negative consequences for women and children. LaMalfa argued that the bill would undermine women's sports by allowing biological males to compete in female categories, thereby eroding the fairness of athletic competitions. He also expressed concern that the legislation would infringe upon religious freedoms by compelling faith-based organizations to act against their beliefs. Furthermore, LaMalfa contended that the bill would lead to the normalization of gender confusion among children, potentially causing long-term harm. He concluded by stating that the Equality Act would "unleash countless consequences" and was a misguided attempt to impose a particular ideology on the nation.
H.R. 8404 — Respect for Marriage Act (House votes July and December 2022; enacted Dec 2022)
How he voted: Nay (voted AGAINST the Respect for Marriage Act in 2022).
Bill Summary: Provides federal statutory recognition and protections for marriages that are valid under state law, including same-sex marriages, and repeals the Defense of Marriage Act’s remaining effects.
Impact: A “nay” on this bill opposed a federal backstop intended to ensure same-sex marriages remain recognized if a future court ruling or state action sought to undo them. Voting against the measure left LGBTQ couples with less federal statutory assurance that their marriages and associated federal benefits would be protected across states if legal precedents changed.
LaMalfa's Statement:
After the House passed H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act, on July 19, 2022, Representative Doug LaMalfa issued a statement expressing his opposition to the legislation. He argued that the bill was unnecessary, suggesting that the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges already provided sufficient protection for same-sex marriage rights. LaMalfa contended that the Act was a political move by Democrats to appease their base rather than a genuine need to safeguard marriage equality. He also expressed concerns that the bill could lead to the recognition of polygamous marriages and other non-traditional unions, which he believed would undermine the institution of marriage.
This position aligns with LaMalfa's broader conservative stance on LGBTQIA+ issues, reflecting his consistent opposition to expanding federal protections for same-sex couples.
H.R. 28 — Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act (2025)
How he voted: Yea (LaMalfa IN FAVOR of and released a statement after the House passed H.R.28 (Jan 2025).
Bill Summary: Prohibits participation in federally funded female sports programs by individuals whose biological sex at birth was male (i.e., restricts transgender girls/women from participating in girls'/women's teams under the bill's criteria).
Impact: Supporting this legislation (A Yea vote) can exclude transgender girls and women from participation in school sports programs, which may increase stigma and deny opportunities for physical activity, scholarship access, team membership, and social inclusion. It can also create compliance and monitoring burdens for schools and lead to local policies that further marginalize transgender students.
LaMalfa's Statement:
"This passage is a significant win for fairness and integrity in women's sports. This bill ensures that female athletes can compete on an even playing field, staying true to the original purpose of Title IX. Women and girls deserve the chance to succeed in sports based on their own hard work and talent, without facing the unfair challenge of competing against biological males. This legislation stands up for the rights of female athletes, protecting their right to privacy and safety in places like bathrooms and locker rooms, and preserving the principles of competition and fair play that are at the heart of sports. It's a straightforward matter, and we're pleased to be taking action to protect the future of women's athletics."
H.R. 5009 National Defense Authorization measures that included limits on gender-affirming care for
How he voted: Yea (He voted IN FAVOR of restricting specific gender-affirming care coverage for minors under military health benefits.)
Bill Summary: The defense bill included language restricting TRICARE coverage for specific gender-affirming medical treatments for minors (language focused on procedures that could “lead to sterilization,” among other specifications, which are lies).
Impact: Voting in favor of NDAA provisions that limit coverage of gender-affirming care for minors can reduce access to medically recommended treatment for transgender youth in military families, potentially worsening mental-health outcomes and creating disparities in care. It also sets a federal policy precedent that can influence broader debates on insurance and healthcare access.
Other related procedural/ancillary votes and public positions
LaMalfa has cosponsored or supported measures and statements opposing recognition/expansion of LGBTQIA protections in prior sessions (for example, his public statements and cosponsorships related to marriage protection/resolution language). Historical records and LaMalfa’s public statements show opposition to same-sex marriage in past years.
Impact: Public opposition, cosponsorship of restrictive resolutions, or votes against protections can signal diminished legislative support for LGBTQIA civil-rights expansions and may embolden state or local measures that reduce protections; they can also contribute to perceived stigma and political vulnerability for LGBTQIA people.
vote 'yes' on california prop 50 November 4th
Defend Democracy!
Other states are ruthlessly redrawing their district maps to serve partisan interests. We must stand firm against these manipulations to ensure fair representation for all. Protect California’s voice in Congress at a time when other states are aggressively redrawing their maps for partisan gain.