# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Senate is beginning a trial on whether or not to remove President Trump from office, a little over a month after the House voted to impeach him.
Read the latest news about the inquiry; listen to our special broadcast coverage.
While momentum toward impeachment had been building among Democrats for months, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced an inquiry in September - after a whistleblower complaint about a White House phone call with Ukraine.

In a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on July 25, Trump asked for an investigation into a debunked conspiracy theory about the 2016 election and into potential 2020 rival and former Vice President Joe Biden. The White House is also accused of withholding military aid to Ukraine for Trump's personal political gain. Trump maintains that he has done nothing wrong.

The House conducted an inquiry that involved a series of closed-door depositions followed by open hearings with key witnesses, including career diplomats with expertise in Ukraine policy. The House Judiciary Committee then voted to recommend impeachment, and the full House voted to impeach on Dec. 18.

The Senate is voting on the rules of its trial on Jan. 21, and opening arguments are expected to begin the next day. At the end of the trial the Senate will vote on whether to remove Trump from office or acquit him.

The Articles

The House brought two articles of impeachment against Trump: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

"President Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States," the resolution reads.

The Trial

Following the House vote to impeach, the Senate holds a trial. Republican and Democratic leadership have been fighting over what constitutes a "fair" trial and whether that includes witnesses who did not take part in the House's investigation.

In the trial, members of the House serve as "managers" who make the case for Trump's removal. The president has his own defense team, including White House counsel, outside attorneys and Republican members of the House.

After the proceedings, senators vote on whether to remove or acquit Trump, based on each article.

Who Was On The Call

The White House has not released a full list of participants on the July 25 call, but NPR has compiled a list of people identified so far. Here's who they are.

Timeline: The Ukraine Affair

From Trump's early focus on Ukraine in 2017, to the release of the whistleblower complaint on Sept. 26, here's how we got to the impeachment inquiry.

Separately, here is a full timeline of the impeachment inquiry, including these key dates:

Dec. 11: House Judiciary begins debate on articles
Dec. 13: House Judiciary approves articles of impeachment
Dec. 18: Full House debates the articles and then votes to impeach
Jan. 16: House impeachment managers hand-deliver the articles to the Senate, a day after being appointed. U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts and senators are sworn in.
Jan. 21: Opening arguments begin in the Senate trial.

Who And What: Key People And Concepts
In-depth profiles and features:
Since the original whistleblower complaint was released, the list of names of those connected to Trump's call with Zelenskiy or to broader Ukraine policy has grown substantially.

From the president to career diplomats to private lawyers, here is a quick guide to people connected to the events being investigated.
Texts and memos Corroborating the whistleblower complaint

Pat Cipollone: Trial turns spotlight on White House counsel

Nancy Pelosi: How the House speaker unified a divided caucus

Mike Pence: Inquiry will test a political path shaped by faith

Transcripts of closed-door depositions
Documents: Primary Sources

Written words are central to the Ukraine affair. The significance of the whistleblower's original complaint and the White House's record of its call with Ukraine are debated, but the text is public. Here are the documents to refer to as the inquiry proceeds:

The whistleblower's complaint has largely been corroborated by witness testimony, public statements and media reports. Read an annotation of the document.

Christopher Anderson, former special adviser for Ukraine negotiations

Catherine Croft, former Ukraine adviser on the National Security Council

David Hale, under secretary of state for political affairs

David Holmes, political counselor at U.S. embassy in Kyiv

Fiona Hill, former White House adviser on Russia

George Kent, deputy assistant secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs

Michael McKinley, former State Department adviser

Philip Reeker, acting assistant secretary of State for Europe

Mark Sandy, White House budget official

William Taylor, acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine

Alexander Vindman, top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council

Kurt Volker, former Ukraine envoy

Marie Yovanovitch, ex-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine

Public hearings

Special Coverage

NPR is airing special coverage at pivotal moments in the inquiry to help you make sense of it all. Listen to those broadcasts on your local public radio station. Find the archive of the audio here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump Impeachment: A Guide To Key People, Facts And Documents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Senate is beginning a trial on whether or not to remove President Trump from office, a little over a month after the House voted to impeach him. Read the latest news about the inquiry ; listen to our special broadcast coverage .

# data[].attributes.headline
Willie Francis: the teen that was executed twice

# data[].attributes.subject
Willie Francis: the teen that was executed twice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WIllie Francis was sentenced to death by electric chair, but a drunken executioner's misstep resulted in a painful shock, but a miraculous survival.

On May 3, 1946, Willie Francis, a 17-year-old black teenager prepared for his final moments on earth. As he was strapped into "Gruesome Gertie," Louisiana's electric chair, too scared to say his goodbyes, Francis just clenched his fists and awaited the inevitable moment when the switch would be flicked. But, when the moment came, something went wrong.

Miraculously, Francis survived.

Little did he know that his survival would start a year-long court battle that would take his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, one that would ultimately fail and brand him 'the teenager who was executed twice.'

The First Execution

After his first botched execution, Francis gave a rare insight into what it felt like to have electricity surge through his body.

"The best way I can describe it is: Whamm! Zst!" he said. "It felt like a hundred and a thousand needles and pins were pricking in me all over and my left leg felt like somebody was cutting it with a razor blade. I could feel my arms jumping at my sides ... I thought for a minute I was going to knock the chair over...I think I must have hollered for them to stop. They say I said, "Take it off! Take it off!'" I know that was certainly what I wanted them to do-turn it off."

After the chair failed, it was discovered that "Gruesome Gertie" had been set up incorrectly. At the time, the electric chair was portable and was transported by truck from jail to jail in Louisiana to perform executions. The two executioners responsible - Captain Ephie Foster and an inmate named Vincent Venezia, who worked as an assistant electrician within the Louisiana prison system - had been drinking the night before.

Despite their misstep, the executioner was furious at Francis. Foster had said "Goodbye, Willie," as he flicked the switch. When Francis was still breathing minutes later, Foster shouted, "I missed you this time, but I'll get you next week if I have to use a rock!"

But, Willie Francis wasn't executed the next week.

Instead, he was suddenly thrust onto the front page of the news. His survival was viewed by many as an act of God. Could Louisiana now, in good faith, put this black teenager to death? The media coverage also drew unwanted attention towards the way African Americans were treated in the Louisiana court system. Francis, who was poor, black, and not yet an adult (like many inmates) had few legal protections available to him.

Francis' Crime

Sixteen months earlier, in November of 1944, someone shot Andrew Thomas, a popular white pharmacist in Francis' hometown of St. Martinville, La. Two months after the murder, with no suspect, St. Martinsville's sheriff, E. L. Resweber, called upon the Chief of Police in Port Arthur to arrest "any man" in order to put this case to bed. A few weeks later they had their man - Willie Francis.

Francis, who was visiting one of his sisters in Port Arthur, was arrested on suspicion of being a drug dealer's accomplice. But when the police could not connect him to the drug dealer, they began questioning him about the St. Martinsville murder. The police allegedly found the murdered pharmacist's wallet and identification card in Francis' possession.

Within minutes the police had a signed confession from Francis for the murder, followed by a second confession the next day. The police denied any coercion, though some of the words used were most likely the result of dictation from a policeman.

Three weeks after his arrest, Francis found himself in front of a grand jury of white men. He pleaded not guilty, but his white lawyers tried to reverse his plea and then refused to make an opening statement. Appallingly, Francis' lawyers did not cross-examine witnesses even though the evidence against Francis was dubious at best.

A lot of mystery surrounded the murder weapon. Francis had supposedly stolen the gun from the Sheriff's deputy, but the deputy had reported the gun missing two months before the murder. Furthermore, the gun wasn't examined for fingerprints, the bullets found in Thomas' body weren't matched with those from the gun, and suspiciously, the gun and bullets were lost before the trial while en-route to the FBI for analysis.

In fact, the gun linked the deputy to the murder. He had even threatened to kill Thomas, whom he suspected of trying to have an affair with his wife. Furthermore, Thomas' neighbors were woken by gunshots on the night of the murder. One of them claimed to have seen a car's headlights in Thomas' driveway. It's unlikely a poor black teenager had access to a car. For one, Francis couldn't even drive.

And to add further doubt, the coroner noted that Thomas was most likely killed by a professional, someone experienced with a gun.

The Retrial

With such a miscarriage of justice, Francis' bungled execution just over a year later seemed heaven-sent to his father, Frederick Francis. He managed to hire the services of the lawyer Bertrand DeBlanc, who despite being best friends with the slain pharmacist, agreed to fight for Francis in court. DeBlanc would prove a stark contrast to Francis' earlier legal representation. Over the next year, he would appeal Francis' death sentence.

DeBlanc claimed "[i]t's not human [to make a man] go to the chair twice," which constituted a "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment, and also went against the Fifth Amendment clause against double jeopardy, which is punishment for the same criminal act more than once.

DeBlanc had a difficult battle ahead of him. First, he faced the Louisiana Pardons Board on May 31, 1946. Despite DeBlanc's passionate arguments, Francis was scheduled for another execution on June 7, 1946. So, DeBlanc (with the help of J. Skelly Wright, then a maritime lawyer in Washington) took Francis' case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, after a shifting of positions between the nine justices, they finally ruled against Francis 5-4. It was one day after Willie Francis' eighteenth birthday.

Despite his personal ruling against Francis, Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter was conflicted. With the help of a lawyer friend, he sought to persuade the Louisiana Governor Jimmie Davis to grant Francis clemency. Unfortunately, he failed.

DeBlanc never gave up on Francis. He vowed to get him a proper trial after he learned that one of Francis' original executioners had been drunk when setting up "Gruesome Gertie." But Francis was denied a new trial. When DeBlanc informed Francis he would take this to the Supreme Court again, Francis told him not to bother. He didn't want to suffer any more disappointments and said, "I'm ready to die."

On May 9, 1947, a little over a year after the first execution attempt, Willie Francis was strapped into the electric chair. He was asked if he had any final words. He replied, "Nothing at all." At 12:05 pm, the switch was pulled and five minutes later Francis was pronounced dead.
Next, read about Hans Schmidt, the only Catholic priest executed in history. Then, read about some of the worst execution methods of all time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This Teenager Went To The Electric Chair Twice - But Was He Really Guilty?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On May 3, 1946, Willie Francis, a 17-year-old black teenager prepared for his final moments on earth. As he was strapped into "Gruesome Gertie," Louisiana's electric chair, too scared to say his goodbyes, Francis just clenched his fists and awaited the inevitable moment when the switch would be flicked.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dorothea Lange/National Archives/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images

It's one of the United States' best-known rights: automatic citizenship to all born within its borders. But birthright citizenship hasn't always been the rule of the land in the U.S., and the legal concept has faced plenty of challenges over the century. Here's the story of birthright citizenship and its challengers.

United States citizenship is rooted in this legal concept

In the U.S., children obtain their citizenship at birth through the legal principle of jus soli ("right of the soil")-that is, being born on U.S. soil-or jus sanguinis ("right of blood")-that is, being born to parents who are United States citizens.

Most countries in the Western Hemisphere have some form of jus soli citizenship, while Europe favors jus sanguinis citizenship. Today, the United States is one of at least 30 countries that affirm birthright citizenship, including most countries in the Western Hemisphere. "Traditionally" notes the Washington Post, "lenient naturalization laws made it more appealing for Europeans to travel to - and settle in - the New World."

Birthright citizenship was initially limited to free white people

In 1787, the Constitution defined citizenship as open to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Soon after, the nation's first naturalization law came into effect. The 1790 law said that "free white persons" could gain citizenship if they had lived in the U.S. for two years and had a good character. The new citizens' children under the age of 21 were given citizenship, too.

But the new naturalization law ignored massive swaths of American society, including enslaved people and Native Americans, neither of whom were considered citizens.

Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

Arguments about slavery challenged the concept of birthright citizenship

In 1857, as arguments about slavery roiled, the U.S. Supreme Court went a step further, finding in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case that Scott, an escaped slave suing for his freedom, was not a citizen because he was of African descent. Nor could any other person of African descent be considered a citizen, even if they were born in the U.S., Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote in the majority opinion.

But that definition didn't last long. During and after the Civil War, lawmakers returned to the debate about whether black people should have birthright citizenship. "What was new in the 1860s...was the possibility for radical legal transformation that accompanied war and its aftermath," writes historian Martha S. Jones.

In 1864, Attorney General Edward Bates tackled the issue in connection with African-American members of the Union Army, finding that "free men of color" born on American soil were American. After the war, the Reconstructionist Congress passed a civil rights law that extended citizenship to all people born in the U.S. who were "not subject to any foreign power."

The 14th Amendment extended birthright citizenship to all

The most sweeping declaration of birthright citizenship came in 1868: the Fourteenth Amendment. Not only did the law protect the civil rights of all, but it defined citizenship as applying to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

The National Archives

Children of immigrants remained in legal limbo until Wong Kim Ark fought for his citizenship-and won

In 1898, the Fourteenth Amendment's definition of birthright citizenship met its first major challenge in the form of a Chinese-American cook named Wong Kim Ark.

Wong had been born on American soil to Chinese immigrants in 1873, well before the U.S. passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited most Chinese immigration and, by extension, the naturalization of Chinese citizens. But since his parents were not citizens, it was unclear whether he too could enjoy birthright citizenship.

When Wong was denied reentry into the U.S. after visiting China, he was forced to wait on a ship in San Francisco harbor for months as his attorney pursued his case for citizenship. He was a test case, selected by the Department of Justice in an attempt to prove that people of Chinese descent weren't citizens.

His case went all the way to the Supreme Court. Then something unexpected happened: Wong won. "The Fourteenth] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States," wrote associate justice Horace Gray in the majority opinion.

Not only was Wong Kim Ark's claim to citizenship legitimate, Gray wrote, but "To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States."

To allow a Chinese-American man citizenship didn't threaten white Americans, Gray suggested. Rather, taking his citizenship away would threaten the privilege and citizenship rights enjoyed by white Americans.

The case became precedent and has since been used to defend the birthright citizenship rights of other Americans. In 1943, for example, it was cited (and contested) in Regan v. King, a federal case that challenged Japanese Americans' right to maintain American citizenship during World War II.

Since then, controversies over birthright citizenship have played out in the court of public opinion. But today, the precedent set by Wong Kim Ark-and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution-still apply. Those born in the United States are considered citizens. And despite opposition to the concept-a 2015 Pew survey, for example, found that 53 percent of Republicans and 23 percent of Democrats oppose the concept-it is still the law of the land.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why the United States Has Birthright Citizenship

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's one of the United States' best-known rights: automatic citizenship to all born within its borders. But birthright citizenship hasn't always been the rule

# data[].attributes.headline
Learning To Spot Fake News: Start With A Gut Check

# data[].attributes.subject
Learning To Spot Fake News: Start With A Gut Check

# data[].attributes.body
Review the article for tips on how to spot fake news. "Four moves and a habit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Which of these statements seems more trustworthy to you?

1) Americans are drowning in a tsunami of ignorance! There is a conspiracy at the highest levels to replace all knowledge with propaganda and disinformation.

2) A recent Stanford University report found that more than 80 percent of middle schoolers didn't understand that the phrase "sponsored content" meant "advertising."

For most of the NPR audience, this shouldn't be a tough question. The first sentence is a florid, mislabeled statement of opinion with an unverifiable, overgeneralized, ideological claim ("conspiracy at the highest levels").

The second is more measured in tone and limited in scope. And, it has a link that goes straight to the original source: a press release from a reputable university.

But these days, statements of all stripes are bombarding us via broadcast and social media. The trick is classifying them correctly before we swallow them ourselves, much less before we hit "Like," "Share" or "Retweet."

And that is the goal of an educational initiative that will be adopted by 10 universities across the country this spring.
Thinking like fact-checkers
This new approach seeks to get students thinking like, and doing the work of, fact-checkers.

"We have approached media literacy and news literacy in the past sort of like rhetoricians," says Mike Caulfield, director of blended and networked learning at Washington State University in Vancouver. (Can that be right? A public university based in the United States with a campus in Canada? No, it's Vancouver, Wash.)

In other words, he explains, we teach students close reading and analysis of elements, like tone. "Fact-checkers," on the other hand, "get to the truth of an issue in 60 to 90 seconds."

He says fact-checkers read laterally - moving quickly away from the original text, opening up a series of tabs in a browser to judge the credibility of its author and the sources it cites.

A new working paper, by the same Stanford researchers cited earlier, provides support for this proposition.

They pit professional fact-checkers against historians and undergraduates. When evaluating websites and searching for information online, the researchers said, "fact-checkers arrived at more warranted conclusions in a fraction of the time."
Four moves and a habit
Caulfield has distilled this approach into what he calls "Four moves and a habit," in a free online textbook that he has published. It's aimed at college students, but frankly it's relevant to everyone.

The moves are:

1. Check for previous work: Look around to see whether someone else has already fact-checked the claim or provided a synthesis of research. [Some places to look: Wikipedia, Snopes, Politifact and NPR's own Fact Check website.]

2. Go upstream to the source: Most Web content is not original. Get to the original source to understand the trustworthiness of the information. Is it a reputable scientific journal? Is there an original news media account from a well-known outlet? If that is not immediately apparent, then move to step 3.

3. Read laterally: Once you get to the source of a claim, read what other people say about the source (publication, author, etc.). The truth is in the network.

4. Circle back: If you get lost or hit dead ends or find yourself going down a rabbit hole, back up and start over.

Finally, Caulfield argues in his book that one of the most important weapons of fact-checking comes from inside the reader: "When you feel strong emotion - happiness, anger, pride, vindication - and that emotion pushes you to share a 'fact' with others, STOP."

His reasoning: Anything that appeals directly to the "lizard brain" is designed to short-circuit our critical thinking. And these kinds of appeals are very often created by active agents of deception.

"We try to convince students to use strong emotions as the mental trigger" for the fact-checking habit, he says.

Caulfield is also the director of the Digital Polarization Initiative of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities's American Democracy Project. Starting this spring, the initiative will bring at least 10 universities together to promote web literacy. They will each adopt Caulfield's ebook as a text across several courses in different disciplines: from history to science to journalism. Students will fact-check, annotate and provide context to news stories that show up in social media feeds.

Their efforts will be published, in the hope of helping others get to the truth a little faster. You can see some initial efforts at this link.

For example, last spring, students at Western Kentucky University took up the question "Are the protesters against Trump being paid to protest?" The students traced the claim back to a Tweet by an Austin, Texas, resident that was later retracted. But his retraction, they found, received much less notice than his original, baseless statement.
The speed of a lie
I asked Caulfield whether the protester example doesn't point up a problem with trying to leverage education to combat hoaxes in the first place. He's asking students to take "90 seconds to two minutes" to confirm something before passing it along.

That is certainly faster than other media literacy methods. But half-truths and misstatements, meanwhile, spread entirely unchecked.

That's the meaning behind the maxim "A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on." (Who said this? Probably not Mark Twain. Jonathan Swift said something similar, according to this site.)

Caulfield argues education does have a role, alongside changes like better algorithms on social networks and tighter regulations, in improving the information landscape. Plus, for him, this kind of work answers a philosophical question: "What do we want education for citizens to look like in a networked world?" He uses an ecological metaphor to explain what he means:

"If you have a couple of people in a large group who identify as scientists, humanists, activists, historians, you build up a herd immunity" to falsehoods, he says. For example, a study by Facebook showed that when someone references Snopes in the comments of a Facebook share, the original sharer is 4.4 times more likely to delete his or her post. And that is the truth ... as far as I know.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Learning To Spot Fake News: Start With A Gut Check

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Which of these statements seems more trustworthy to you? 1) Americans are drowning in a tsunami of ignorance! There is a conspiracy at the highest levels to replace all knowledge with propaganda and disinformation. 2) A recent Stanford University report found that more than 80 percent of middle schoolers didn't understand that the phrase "sponsored content" meant "advertising."

# data[].attributes.body
Track campaign contributions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Center for Responsive Politics is the nation's premier research group tracking money in politics and its effect on elections and public policy.

# data[].attributes.body
Snopes

# data[].attributes.body
Politifact

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fact-checking U.S. politics | PolitiFact

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

# data[].attributes.headline
Electoral College map interpretation.  Is the U.S. just red and blue states?

# data[].attributes.subject
Electoral College map interpretation.  Is the U.S. just red and blue states?

# data[].attributes.headline
How changes to the Electoral College system would have impacted previous elections.

# data[].attributes.subject
How changes to the Electoral College system would have impacted previous elections.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Current

Popular vote

Proportional

Parliamentary

Contingent

Hillary Clinton, Al Gore or Mitt Romney could easily have been president depending on how ballots are counted. Primary voters and candidates complained about various state-by-state rules that created different outcomes, raising claims "rigged" schemes. Our elections can be complicated (to say the least). We explored what would happen under different electoral systems - and found that adjusted rules could have changed the outcome in more than half of the presidential elections since 2000.

Current U.S. system for picking the president

Complicated and unequal

You've probably never met a presidential elector - the people who voted Dec. 19 to pick the president of the United States. There are only 538 of them for a country of almost 325 million people. That's because the white guys who wrote the rules (the Constitution and amendments) did not trust regular people and wanted to give slave-holding states more votes without letting blacks vote. So they created "indirect" elections, where voters get to pick some people, and then those people get to vote for president. The system is further complicated because a voter in a small state gets more say in picking electors than a voter in a big state. And states have different rules. Almost all states assign their electoral votes as winner-take-all, but Maine and Nebraska award electors by congressional districts. And a lurking mystery is whether electors really have to do what voters in the state said, anyway. Most states have laws "binding" the delegates, but legal scholars have debated whether the electors could still go rogue and vote their conscience.

These are the states each candidate won weighted using electoral votes.

2000

One of the

delegates from

the District of

Columbia

abstained.

270 to win

266

271

George W. Bush

Al Gore

2004

270 to win

252

286

John Kerry

George W. Bush

2008

Obama got one of

Nebraska's districts

270 to win

365

173

Barack Obama

John McCain

2012

270 to win

332

206

Barack Obama

Mitt Romney

2016

270 to win

227

304

Hillary

Clinton

Donald

Trump

... creating these results.

These are the states each candidate won ....

... which won this

many electoral votes ...

2000

266

Al Gore

271

George

W. Bush

One of the delegates from

the District of Columbia abstained.

2004

252

John

Kerry

286

George

W. Bush

2008

Obama got one of

Nebraska's districts

365

Barack

Obama

173

John

McCain

2012

332

Barack

Obama

206

Mitt

Romney

Four Washington

electors voted for

someone other

than Clinton

2016

227

Hillary

Clinton

304

Donald

Trump

These are the states each candidate won ....

2016

Wash.

Maine

Trump picked the

electoral vote

from Maine's

second district.

Mont.

N.D.

Minn.

Ore.

Idaho

Wis.

S.D.

N.Y.

Wyo.

Mich.

Pa.

Iowa

Nev.

Neb.

Ohio

Ind.

Ill.

Utah

Colo.

Va.

Calif.

Kan.

Mo.

Ky.

N.C.

Tenn.

Ariz.

Okla.

Ark.

S.C.

N.M.

Miss.

Ala.

Ga.

La.

Donald Trump

carried six states

that voted for Obama

in 2012.

Texas

Alaska

Hawaii

Fla.

2000

2004

2008

2012

... which won this many electoral votes ...

A democratic elector tried to vote

for Bernie Sanders, but state officials

ruled that the vote was improper and

ordered a revote. The elector voted

then for Hillary Clinton.

Four Washington electors voted for

someone other than Clinton.

Colin Powell got three votes.

Teh other was for Faith

Spotted Eagle.

N.Y.

Mass.

Wis.

Mich.

R.I.

Conn.

Wash.

Pa.

Ore.

Minn.

Ohio

Neb.

Ill.

Nev.

N.J.

Ind.

W.Va.

Iowa

Colo.

Utah

Ky.

Md.

Kan.

Calif.

Ariz.

Mo.

N.M.

Tenn.

Va.

Ark.

N.C.

Texas

Ala.

Miss.

Ga.

Two electors in Texas

voted for John Kasich

and Ron Paul.

La.

S.C.

Bernie Sanders

received one vote

in Hawaii.

Fla.

270 to win

227

304

Hillary

Clinton

Donald

Trump

2000

2004

2008

2012

Obama got one of

Nebraska's districts

One of the

delegates from

the District of

Columbia

abstained.

270 to win

270 to win

270 to win

270 to win

266

271

252

286

365

173

332

206

Al

Gore

George W.

Bush

John

Kerry

George W.

Bush

Barack

Obama

John

McCain

Barack

Obama

Mitt

Romney

Popular vote

President Gore and other drastic changes

The simplest system could yield some of the greatest change in American politics. Direct election by pure vote total would have made Hillary Clinton and Al Gore presidents in 2000 and 2016. Under that system, campaigns would most likely focus on the densest collection of votes - big cities and their suburbs. Rural areas and small cities may be ignored. Candidates have won the popular vote but lost the election five times. Clinton won this year by more than 2.8 million votes, according to Dave Leip's collection of certified state results.

2000

CHANGE

Al Gore

50,996,582 votes

50,456,062

George W. Bush

Gore

Bush

2004

John Kerry

57,355,978

60,693,281

George W. Bush

Kerry

Bush

2008

Barack Obama

69,297,997

59,597,520

John McCain

Obama

McCain

2012

Barack Obama

65,444,241

60,587,978

Mitt Romney

Obama

Romney

2016

Hillary Clinton

65,844,610

62,979,636

Donald Trump

Clinton

Trump

2000

2004

CHANGE

Al Gore

John Kerry

50,996,582 votes

57,355,978

50,456,062

60,693,281

George W. Bush

George W. Bush

Gore

Bush

Kerry

Bush

2008

2012

Barack Obama

Barack Obama

69,297,997

65,444,241

59,597,520

60,587,978

John McCain

Mitt Romney

Obama

Obama

Romney

McCain

2016

CHANGE

Hillary Clinton

65,844,610

Donald Trump

62,979,636

Clinton

Trump

2016

CHANGE

Hillary Clinton

65,844,610 votes

Donald Trump

62,979,636

Clinton

Trump

2000

2004

2008

2012

CHANGE

Al Gore

John Kerry

Barack Obama

Barack Obama

50,996,582 votes

57,355,978

69,297,997

65,444,241

50,456,062

60,693,281

59,597,520

60,587,978

George W. Bush

George W. Bush

John McCain

Mitt Romney

Gore

Bush

Obama

Obama

Bush

Kerry

McCain

Romney

Proportional by state

Drop winner-take-all and learn to share

Another seemingly simple concept, used in many states for the presidential primaries, is to assign electors according to the share of votes each candidate got. As with pure popular vote, this would encourage candidates to pursue votes in every state, not just those they can win outright. Proportional results are less decisive than winner-take-all so there's less chance of a clear winner with a mandate to lead. In both 2000 and 2016, no candidate would have won a majority, so some combination of parties would have to form a coalition to get 270 electoral votes, or the country could have a do-over election.

2000

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

DC

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL

IN

IA

KY

KS

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

LA

MT

NJ

NV

NH

MS

NE

NM

MO

NC

ND

NY

OH

OK

OR

RI

SC

SD

TN

PA

TX

UT

VT

VA

WA

WV

WY

WI

CHANGE

50%

Gore

Bush

Nader

262

263

13

Bush would get one electoral vote more than Gore, but a coalition would be needed to get over 50 percent of the vote.

2004

50%

600

Nader

Kerry

Bush

1

259

278

Nader would have picked up his only vote from New York.

2008

50%

100

200

300

400

500

Obama

McCain

287

251

No third-party candidate would have earned a single electoral vote.

2012

50%

600

Johnson

Romney

Obama

2

258

278

Gary Johnson would have received electoral votes in California and Texas.

2016

CHANGE

50%

Clinton

Johnson

McMullin

Trump

268

2

1

267

Clinton would be the candidate with more votes, but a coalition with Johnson would be needed to get over 50 percent of the vote. Trump would need to get together with both Johnson and McMullin to reach a majority.

2000

2004

CHANGE

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

DC

FL

GA

CO

CT

DE

DC

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL

IN

IA

KY

HI

ID

KS

IL

IN

IA

KY

KS

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

LA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

LA

MT

NJ

NV

NH

MS

NE

NM

MO

MT

NJ

NV

NH

MS

NE

NM

MO

NC

ND

NY

OH

NC

ND

NY

OH

OK

OR

RI

SC

SD

TN

PA

OK

OR

RI

SC

SD

TN

PA

TX

UT

VT

VA

WA

TX

UT

VT

VA

WA

WV

WY

WI

WV

WY

WI

50%

50%

Kerry

Bush

Gore

Nader

Nader

Bush

259

278

262

13

1

263

Bush would get one electoral vote more than Gore, but a coalition would be needed to get over 50 percent of the vote.

Nader would have picked up his only vote from New York.

2008

2012

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

DC

FL

GA

CO

CT

DE

DC

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL

IN

IA

KY

KS

HI

ID

IL

IN

IA

KY

KS

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

LA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

LA

MT

NJ

NV

NH

MS

NE

NM

MO

MT

NJ

NV

NH

MS

NE

NM

MO

NC

ND

NY

OH

NC

ND

NY

OH

OK

OR

RI

SC

SD

TN

PA

OK

OR

RI

SC

SD

TN

PA

TX

UT

VT

VA

WA

TX

UT

VT

VA

WA

WV

WY

WI

WV

WY

WI

50%

50%

Obama

McCain

Obama

Romney

Johnson

287

251

278

258

2

No third-party candidate would have earned a single electoral vote.

Gary Johnson would have received electoral votes in California and Texas.

2016

CHANGE

CO

CT

DC

AL

AZ

AR

CA

DE

FL

AK

ID

HI

GA

IL

KY

IA

KS

IN

LA

ME

MD

MA

NH

MI

MN

NJ

NE

NM

MO

MT

MS

NV

NY

NC

OH

ND

OK

OR

SC

RI

SD

TN

PA

WV

TX

VT

WY

VA

WA

WI

UT

50%

Clinton

Johnson

McMullin

Trump

268

2

1

267

Clinton would be the candidate with more votes, but a coalition with Johnson would be needed to get over 50 percent of the vote. Trump would need to get together with both Johnson and McMullin to reach a majority.

2016

CHANGE

ID

HI

CO

CT

DC

GA

AL

AZ

AR

CA

DE

FL

AK

IL

KY

IA

KS

IN

LA

ME

NH

NC

MD

MA

MI

MN

NJ

OH

NE

NM

MO

MT

ND

MS

NV

NY

OK

OR

WV

SC

RI

TX

SD

VT

WY

VA

WA

WI

TN

PA

UT

50%

Clinton

Johnson

McMullin

Trump

268

2

1

267

Clinton would be the candidate with more votes, but a coalition with Johnson would be needed to get over 50 percent of the vote. Trump would need to get together with both Johnson and McMullin to reach a majority.

CHANGE

2000

2004

2008

2012

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

DC

FL

GA

CO

CT

DE

DC

FL

GA

CO

CT

DE

DC

FL

GA

CO

CT

DE

DC

FL

GA

HI

ID

HI

ID

HI

ID

HI

ID

IL

IN

IA

IL

IN

IA

IL

IN

IA

IL

IN

IA

KY

KY

KY

KY

KS

KS

KS

KS

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

LA

LA

LA

LA

MT

NJ

MT

NJ

MT

NJ

MT

NJ

NV

NH

NV

NH

NV

NH

NV

NH

MS

NE

NM

MS

NE

NM

MS

NE

NM

MS

NE

NM

MO

MO

MO

MO

NC

NC

NC

NC

ND

ND

ND

ND

NY

OH

NY

OH

NY

OH

NY

OH

OK

OR

RI

SC

OK

OR

RI

SC

OK

OR

RI

SC

OK

OR

RI

SC

SD

TN

SD

TN

SD

TN

SD

TN

PA

PA

PA

PA

TX

UT

VT

TX

UT

VT

TX

UT

VT

TX

UT

VT

VA

WA

VA

WA

VA

WA

VA

WA

WV

WV

WV

WV

WY

WY

WY

WY

WI

WI

WI

WI

50%

50%

50%

50%

Obama

McCain

Gore

Nader

Kerry

Nader

Bush

Bush

Johnson

Romney

Obama

287

251

262

259

1

278

13

2

258

263

278

Bush would get one electoral vote more than Gore, but a coalition would be needed to get over 50 percent of the vote.

Nader would have picked up his only vote from New York.

No third-party candidate would have earned a single electoral vote.

Gary Johnson would have received electoral votes in California and Texas.

Parliamentary democracy

Romney is president, using the speaker of the House system

Data for congressional-district-level results of the 2016 presidential election are not yet available.

Countries like Britain have voters in every district choose a party, and the party that wins the most districts gets to pick the top leader, which they call the prime minister. That's very similar to picking U.S. House representatives, who then pick the speaker of the House. This system has the advantage of giving voters everywhere relatively equal weight in picking the leader. Because Republican state legislatures effectively redrew congressional district lines after the 2010 census, Democrats got more votes for Congress in 2012 but Republicans won 33 more seats. These maps show which presidential candidate won each congressional district (special results created by Polidata). Using this system, Romney would have won.

2000

50%

240

195

Gore

Bush

2004

50%

256

179

Kerry

Bush

2008

50%

242

193

Obama

McCain

2012

CHANGE

50%

209

226

Obama

Romney

2000

2004

50%

50%

256

195

240

179

Bush

Bush

Gore

Kerry

2012

2008

CHANGE

50%

50%

226

209

193

242

Obama

Romney

Obama

McCain

2012

2000

2004

2008

CHANGE

50%

50%

50%

50%

195

240

179

256

242

193

209

226

Bush

Gore

Kerry

Bush

Obama

McCain

Obama

Romney

Contingent elections

Using the tiebreaker, once again Romney and Trump are presidents

Currently, if the electors are deadlocked, the presidential election goes to the House of Representatives. The House has picked three presidents. The twist in this indirect form of election is that each representative does not get a vote. Instead, each state delegation has to agree on a vote. States with a mix of Democratic and Republican representatives might not agree on the presidential pick. The 2012 election yielded 30 states with a Republican-majority House delegation, so Romney would probably have been president under that system. And again in 2016, Republicans control 32 state delegations, so a decision by the House would probably favor Trump.

2000

ME

WI

VT

NH

WA

ID

MT

ND

MN

IL

MI

NY

MA

OR

NV

WY

SD

IA

IN

OH

PA

NJ

CT

RI

CA

UT

CO

NE

MO

KY

WV

VA

MD

DE

AZ

NM

KS

AR

TN

NC

SC

OK

LA

MS

AL

GA

HI

AK

TX

FL

50%

28

18

0

100

200

300

500

400

Gore

Bush

2004

ME

WI

VT

NH

WA

ID

MT

ND

MN

IL

MI

NY

MA

OR

NV

WY

SD

IA

IN

OH

PA

NJ

CT

RI

CA

UT

CO

NE

MO

KY

WV

VA

MD

DE

AZ

NM

KS

AR

TN

NC

SC

OK

LA

MS

AL

GA

HI

AK

TX

FL

50%

17

30

600

Bush

Kerry

2008

ME

VT

NH

WI

ID

WA

MT

ND

MN

IL

MI

NY

MA

RI

OR

NV

WY

SD

IA

IN

OH

PA

NJ

CT

CA

UT

CO

NE

MO

KY

WV

VA

MD

DE

AZ

NM

KS

AR

TN

NC

SC

OK

LA

MS

AL

GA

HI

AK

TX

FL

50%

16

33

0

100

200

300

400

500

McCain

Obama

2012

CHANGE

ME

WI

VT

NH

WA

ID

MT

ND

MN

IL

MI

NY

MA

OR

WY

SD

IN

OH

PA

CT

RI

NV

IA

NJ

CA

UT

CO

NE

MO

KY

WV

VA

MD

DE

AZ

NM

KS

AR

TN

NC

SC

OK

LA

MS

AL

GA

HI

AK

TX

FL

50%

30

17

600

Romney

Obama

2016

ME

WI

VT

NH

WA

ID

MT

ND

MN

IL

MI

NY

MA

OR

NV

WY

SD

IA

IN

OH

PA

NJ

CT

RI

CA

UT

CO

NE

MO

KY

WV

VA

MD

DE

AZ

NM

KS

AR

TN

NC

SC

OK

LA

MS

AL

GA

HI

AK

TX

FL

50%

17

32

Clinton

Trump

2000

2004

ME

ME

WI

VT

NH

WI

VT

NH

WA

ID

MT

ND

MN

IL

MI

NY

MA

WA

ID

MT

ND

MN

IL

MI

NY

MA

OR

NV

WY

SD

IA

IN

OH

PA

NJ

CT

RI

OR

NV

WY

SD

IA

IN

OH

PA

NJ

CT

RI

CA

UT

CO

NE

MO

KY

WV

VA

MD

DE

CA

UT

CO

NE

MO

KY

WV

VA

MD

DE

AZ

NM

KS

AR

TN

NC

SC

AZ

NM

KS

AR

TN

NC

SC

OK

LA

MS

AL

GA

OK

LA

MS

AL

GA

HI

AK

HI

AK

TX

FL

TX

FL

50%

50%

30

18

28

17

Bush

Bush

Kerry

Gore

2008

2012

CHANGE

ME

ME

VT

NH

WI

VT

NH

WI

ID

WA

ID

MT

ND

MN

IL

MI

NY

MA

WA

MT

ND

MN

IL

MI

NY

MA

RI

OR

WY

SD

IN

OH

PA

CT

RI

NV

IA

NJ

OR

NV

WY

SD

IA

IN

OH

PA

NJ

CT

CA

UT

CO

NE

MO

KY

WV

VA

MD

DE

CA

UT

CO

NE

MO

KY

WV

VA

MD

DE

AZ

NM

KS

AR

TN

NC

SC

AZ

NM

KS

AR

TN

NC

SC

OK

LA

MS

AL

GA

HI

AK

OK

LA

MS

AL

GA

HI

AK

TX

FL

TX

FL

50%

50%

30

33

16

17

Obama

McCain

Romney

Obama

2016

ME

WI

VT

NH

WA

ID

MT

ND

MN

IL

MI

NY

MA

OR

NV

WY

SD

IA

IN

OH

PA

NJ

CT

RI

CA

UT

CO

NE

MO

KY

WV

VA

MD

DE

AZ

NM

KS

AR

TN

NC

SC

OK

LA

MS

AL

GA

HI

AK

TX

FL

50%

17

32

Clinton

Trump

2016

114th Congress

ME

50%

WI

VT

NH

WA

ID

MT

ND

MN

IL

MI

NY

MA

OR

NV

WY

SD

IA

IN

OH

PA

NJ

CT

RI

17

32

CA

UT

CO

NE

MO

KY

WV

VA

MD

DE

AZ

NM

KS

AR

TN

NC

SC

OK

LA

MS

AL

GA

HI

AK

TX

FL

Clinton

Trump

2000

2004

2008

2012

107th Congress

109th Congress

111th Congress

113th Congress

CHANGE

ME

ME

ME

ME

WI

VT

NH

WI

VT

NH

VT

NH

WI

VT

NH

WI

WA

ID

MT

ND

MN

IL

MI

NY

MA

WA

ID

MT

ND

MN

IL

MI

NY

MA

ID

WA

ID

MT

ND

MN

IL

MI

NY

MA

WA

MT

ND

MN

IL

MI

NY

MA

OR

NV

WY

SD

IA

IN

OH

PA

NJ

CT

RI

OR

NV

WY

SD

IA

IN

OH

PA

NJ

CT

RI

RI

OR

WY

SD

IN

OH

PA

CT

RI

NV

IA

NJ

OR

NV

WY

SD

IA

IN

OH

PA

NJ

CT

CA

UT

CO

NE

MO

KY

WV

VA

MD

DE

CA

UT

CO

NE

MO

KY

WV

VA

MD

DE

CA

UT

CO

NE

MO

KY

WV

VA

MD

DE

CA

UT

CO

NE

MO

KY

WV

VA

MD

DE

AZ

NM

KS

AR

TN

NC

SC

AZ

NM

KS

AR

TN

NC

SC

AZ

NM

KS

AR

TN

NC

SC

AZ

NM

KS

AR

TN

NC

SC

OK

LA

MS

AL

GA

OK

LA

MS

AL

GA

HI

AK

HI

AK

OK

LA

MS

AL

GA

HI

AK

OK

LA

MS

AL

GA

HI

AK

TX

FL

TX

FL

TX

FL

TX

FL

50%

50%

50%

50%

17

30

16

17

33

28

18

30

Bush

Obama

McCain

Romney

Gore

Bush

Kerry

Obama

Source: United States House of Representatives, Mathematical Association of America, UK Parliament, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, National Archives, United States Census Bureau, Associated Press, Polidata Federal Election Commission, Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. presidential election.

More stories

How to vote in each state

14 states have new laws that could make it more difficult to vote this year. Check if yours is one of them.

Schedule: When Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will debate

The nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates has sponsored meetings between the candidates since 1988. Here, what we know about each of the 90-minute 2016 debates.

Create your own Clinton-Trump debate

Choose among 15 debate topics, and we'll serve up what the candidates have said on the subject thus far.

More Coverage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hate our electoral system? Here's who could have been president under other setups

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We explored what would happen under different electoral systems - and found that adjusted rules could have changed the outcome in half of the presidential elections since 2000.

# data[].attributes.body
Read the full Order entered by Judge Wilson explaining his decision in the Stockley Case.

# data[].attributes.headline
Black Lives Matter and America’s long history of resisting civil rights protesters

# data[].attributes.subject
Black Lives Matter and America’s long history of resisting civil rights protesters

# data[].attributes.body
Interesting look at historical perceptions of the Civil Rights Movement from opinion polls taken during the 1960s.

# data[].attributes.body
7 ways media/news outlets can present information in a biased way.

# data[].attributes.headline
TED Video: How to separate fact and fiction online

# data[].attributes.subject
TED Video: How to separate fact and fiction online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Markham Nolan: How to separate fact and fiction online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By the end of this talk, there will be 864 more hours of video on YouTube and 2.5 million more photos on Facebook and Instagram. So how do we sort through the deluge?

# data[].attributes.body
This image serves to start a critical analysis of US media outlets and is NOT a definitive or indisputable guide to US media.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Interactive Media Bias Chart® 0 Total sources Video Tutorial Our Methodology Upgrade Options Member Access 0 Total sources Video Tutorial Our Methodology Upgrade Options Member Access Use search box to find thousands of sources not displayed by default See More with Premium and Pro Premium IMBC for Members IMBC EDU Pro for Education Ad Fontes...

# data[].attributes.body
"The United States Elections Project is an information source for the United States electoral system.  The mission of the project is to provide timely and accurate election statistics, electoral laws, research reports, and other useful information regarding the United States electoral system. By providing this information, the project seeks to inform the people of the United States on how their electoral system works, how it may be improved, and how they can participate in it."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United States Elections Project is an information source for the United States electoral system. The mission of the project is to provide timely and accurate election statistics, electoral laws, research reports, and other useful information regarding the United States electoral system.

# data[].attributes.body
Washington Post

# data[].attributes.body
Bathroom Bill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
JEFFERSON CITY * If there was a crescendo in the long line of transgender people and their supporters speaking against the nation's latest "bathroom bill" Tuesday, it probably came when Samantha DeMichieli of St. Louis stopped talking and started crying.

With her black hair tied back in a ponytail, Samantha, 13, offered the Senate education committee her credentials as a "normal girl": a role on her school's cheer team, a love of drawing, a fondness for the family cats.

Then she revealed that she lived her first six years as Samuel before deciding to identify as female. At the school she goes to now, it's not a problem, she said. Her friends and teachers accept her and don't make a big deal about where she goes to the bathroom.

A few years ago, things were different.

"At my old school, I was bullied for just being who I was," she said before the tears began.

Samantha's fear of exposure and humiliation at school for being transgender was at the heart of the opposition to a proposal Lamar Republican Sen. Ed Emery says is essential to keeping all students safe in public school restrooms and locker rooms.

Under his bill, public school students would be required to use the bathrooms or locker rooms corresponding to their "biological sex," of either male or female, "identified at birth by a person's anatomy" and recorded on their birth certificate.

That means transgender students who haven't had surgery or legally changed their birth certificates would have to go to the restroom matching their sex at birth.

The hearing also comes a month before the Supreme Court hears arguments in the case of a transgender Virginia teen who sued his school district after it barred him from the boys' bathroom.

Emery said his legislation came in response to what he saw as the "creation" of new gender identities by those courts and the federal government.

"We now have genders that no longer align with physiology and science and biology; they're subjective," he said. "But Senate Bill 98 says that we still have the same responsibility to every student - whether they're the 1 percent or the 99 percent - to continue the separation of genders in stages of undress."

He added that the bill accommodated students with transgender "mindsets" by requiring access to alternatives like single-stall, unisex or faculty restrooms.

LGBT advocates were having none of it.

Steph Perkins, executive director of the LGBT rights group PROMO, said barring transgender students from choosing a bathroom matching their identity isolates them and can easily lead to them being outed against their will.

"Requiring transgender students to use a bathroom that doesn't match their gender identity is discriminatory, period," she said.

Several parents of transgender children who spoke at the hearing agreed. They also worried that new rules could needlessly force their kids into restrooms and locker rooms where they would be teased or harassed.

Debi Jackson of Kansas City said her 9-year-old daughter Avery used to be terrified to use any public restroom when she was first transitioning as a transgender girl.

"Her fear of being yelled at or hurt just for using the bathroom was almost crippling," she said. "That's how a lot of trans people feel, especially in school. Rather than focusing on learning, they have to monitor how much they eat or drink before and during school hours."

Studies would appear to show Jackson isn't making that up.

A 2015 survey by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network found that 57 percent of transgender students in Missouri were unable to use the bathroom matching their gender identity.

That can lead to dire consequences for transgender kids, who hurt themselves and commit suicide at higher levels than even other LGBT people. In 2013, researchers at Columbia University found LGBT kids attending school districts with less inclusive policies were more than twice as likely to attempt suicide than their counterparts in districts that accommodated their wishes.

Republicans remained wary.

Sen. Andrew Koenig, R-Manchester thought the state should avoid pushing children to embrace a transgender identity, especially at such a young age.

"Kids say a lot funny things, you know, 'When I grow up I want to be a dog,'" Koenig said. "But that doesn't mean I turn around and try to cultivate that and say 'Yes, you can be a dog.'

"We tell these kids they can't drive, they can't drink alcohol, they can't smoke because they're not old enough to make those decisions. At the age of 5, is it appropriate to cultivate something that they genetically are not?"

Most parents scoffed at that point.

"No one does this for fun," said a Webster Groves parent who asked that her name be excluded to protect her transgender son. "My son is not confused, he is not delusional, he is not mentally ill and he is not a sexual predator."

At his closing remarks, Emery remained resolute.

"No one here is arguing against anyone's right to think what they want to think," he said. "This is about safety and it's about privacy."

But Samantha had already spoken for many in the room after she regained her composure.

"Knowing that there might be a change in the law saying that I would have to use a different restroom is horrifying for me," she said. "I'm not in the bathroom to do anything bad, to vandalize or peep in the stalls ... I'm there to pee and wash my hands."

Most St. Louis-area school districts handle transgender issues quietly on a case-by-case basis.

One notable exception is the Hillsboro School District, which in 2015 saw students walk out of Hillsboro High School in protest of a transgender student using the girl's restroom.

The district eventually codified a policy saying "anyone who desires greater privacy" could request alternative accommodations so long as the restroom or dressing area doesn't include that of the opposite sex.

Emery's measure has already garnered the controversial "bathroom bill" label, shorthand for similar bills targeting transgender people and defining "biological sex" filed in 14 states this year. But his legislation is somewhat more narrow than more high-profile efforts like those in North Carolina and Texas.

North Carolina last year successfully reversed reversed a Charlotte ordinance allowing transgender people to use any public restroom based on their gender identity and made it illegal for cities to expand on state human rights law.

A bill making its way through the Texas Senate this year adds enforcement mechanisms. The current proposal increases penalties for crimes committed in a bathroom and allows the state's attorney general to fine cities, school districts and state agencies up to $10,500 per day if their bathroom policy stepped out of line.

But Emery's bill could easily garner national attention if Democrats launched a filibuster similar to their record effort in protest of a "religious freedom" bill last year.

All three Democrats, including St. Louis-area Democratic senators Maria Chappelle-Nadal and Jill Schupp, are against the bill. No vote was taken at the hearing.
The legislation is Senate Bill 98.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Bathroom bill' draws parade of criticism in Missouri Senate committee

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
JEFFERSON CITY * If there was a crescendo in the long line of transgender people and their supporters speaking against the nation's latest "bathroom bill" Tuesday, it probably came when Samantha DeMichieli of St. Louis stopped talking and started crying.