|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Autauga-Prattville Public Library Board enacted new policies last month that it hoped would satisfy a federal court.
Bur the plaintiffs in that lawsuit entered a new filing Monday that says the new policies have the same problem as the old ones.
“The Autauga-Prattville Public Library Board of Trustees has amended its Selection Criteria Policy that formed the basis of this action—but those amendments failed to cure the Policy’s constitutional deficiencies,” the plaintiffs’ counsel wrote.
The filing includes further evidence that the policy change doesn’t resolve the board’s intent to discriminate against books containing LGBTQ content.
“Make sure to note that we did not back down, exact same still no gender identity and sexual orientation but presented differently to get a lawsuit dismissal,” wrote Clean Up Alabama Executive Director Hannah Rees in a Moms for Liberty Facebook group. “We have still won and books have
been removed from the library collection and will not be acquired from this point further.”
After the board terminated director Andrew Foster and hired Tammy Bear as interim director, many of the books Clean Up raised concerns about disappeared from both the shelves and the catalog. Bear told APR on May 7 that those books were being reviewed and had not been removed from the collection.
On June 24, the board’s new policies created a process to challenge book removals, but only within 30 days of removal. An accompanying resolution also “effectively defines material that the Board
has determined is ‘inappropriate for children or youth’ under the Selection Criteria Policy” to include “mature theme or themes concerning issues of sexuality, sexual orientation, sexual abuse, or
transgender identity.” The board cannot block a removal if the majority agrees it meets these standards.
The plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint, but are asking for leave to supplement the complaint with more allegations related to the new policy.
The plaintiffs also renewed their motion for a preliminary injunction to revert the policy back to its longstanding form before the new board made changes in February.
The board’s motion calling for the lawsuit to be dismissed as moot is still pending as well. The filing argues that the new policies satisfy the challenges made in the original complaint and therefore the case should be dismissed. The board further argues that the plaintiffs lack standing, including by lacking actual injury.
All filing deadlines have now been met and a ruling from Judge Myron Thompson will determine how and whether the case proceeds
