Municipal Equality Index 2024

The 2024 Municipal Equality Index rates 506 municipalities of varying sizes drawn from every state in the nation.

These include the 50 state capitals, the 200 largest cities in the United States, the five largest cities or municipalities in each state, the cities home to the state’s two largest public universities (including undergraduate and graduate enrollment), 75 cities and municipalities that have high proportions of same-sex couples and 98 cities selected by HRC and Equality Federation state groups members and supporters.

These 75 cities with the highest proportions of same-sex couples are drawn from an analysis of the 2010 Census results by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law which ranked the 25 large cities (population exceeding 250,000), 25 mid-size cities (population between 100,000 and 250,000), and 25 small cities (population below 100,000) with the highest proportion of same-sex couples.

To be consistent, we rated all twenty-five of these small cities, even though some of these small “cities” are in fact unincorporated census-designated places. In that case, we rated the laws and policies of the applicable incorporated local government (the entity actually rated, often the county, will be clearly indicated).

Significant overlap between these categories of cities brings the total number of cities rated in the 2024 MEI to 506, which has been the number of cities rated since 2016. In 2012, the MEI rated 137 cities; in 2013, 291; in 2014, 353; and in 2015 we rated 408 cities.

Why isn’t Washington, D.C. Rated?

Washington, D.C. is not rated by the MEI, even though it has a high proportion of same-sex couples and fits into several of the city selection criteria. Unlike the cities rated in the MEI, however, Washington D.C. is a federal district. This means that it has powers and limitations so significantly different from the municipalities the MEI rates that the comparison would be unfair—for example, no city rated by the MEI has the legal capacity to pass marriage equality, as Washington, D.C. did in 2009. While the District of Columbia is not a state, either, it is more properly compared to a state than it is to a city. For that reason, Washington, D.C. is included in HRC’s annual State Equality Index. More information on Washington, D.C.’s laws and policies can be viewed on the maps of state laws located at hrc.org/sei.

Some cities have the autonomy and wherewithal to pass inclusive laws and offer cutting-edge city services while others are hampered by severe state-imposed limitations on their ability to pass inclusive laws. Many, still, have found that the small scope of their local government limits their capabilities.

The MEI is designed to understand the unique situation of each city and is structured to reward the specific achievements of a local government.

The efforts and achievements of each city can only be fairly judged within that city’s context; while imposing a score may seem to strip a city of its context, the MEI honors the different situations from which the selected cities come in three major ways: flex points, consideration of state law, and legislative leadership efforts.

FLEX POINTS

First, in addition to the 100 standard points for city laws and services, the MEI allows cities to earn up to 22 flex points.

Flex points are awarded for essential programs, protections, or benefits that may not be easily attainable for some cities. So, while cities with the item are rewarded, cities without it are not penalized.

Flex points can also provide some leeway for cities that face challenges in accomplishing the specific achievements the MEI measures and ensure that every city has the ability to improve its score year after year.

CONSIDERATION OF STATE LAW

Second, the MEI weighs state and municipal law such that the effect of excellent or restrictive state law does not determine the city’s ability to score well. While negative state law may result in a loss of points, or positive state law may result in points gained, cities are able to utilize the flexibility of the scoring system to mitigate negative effects and balance out positive effects. Accuracy is as critical in educating the community about what rights and protections exist as is a fair process in which cities have significant control over their own score.

LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP

Lastly, the MEI rates the city leadership’s public position on LGBTQ+ equality and gives credit for legislative efforts (even if unsuccessful). If a city has outspoken advocates for equality who are unfortunately still in the minority, the city will still receive credit for the efforts it has made.

The Municipal Equality Index is carefully designed to rate cities in detail while respecting that a number of factors may boost or inhibit a city’s ability, or incentive, to adopt the laws and policies this project rates.

Given the range of authority and incentives that cities have, and acknowledging that our effort to rate small cities as well as large cities exacerbates these challenges, the MEI had to wrestle with three major questions in its initial design.

QUESTION 1

How could the MEI fairly take state law into account, particularly as the disparity between states with pro-equality laws and states without pro-equality laws continues to grow?

ANSWER

Balance. The rating system would not be fair if cities outside of states with favorable laws were not able to do very well on the MEI. Carefully allocating the points to respect the dynamic relationship between state and local government was a must. Unfortunately, many of the anti-LGBTQ+ state laws enacted in recent years have eroded or overridden positive efforts cities have made over the years, especially in regard to cities offering inclusive health care policies for transgender employees or transgender family members of employees.

Because several states have laws prohibiting the use of public funds to pay for health care for transgender people, cities in those states are no longer able to provide such benefits. Additionally, several states have banned transgender youth from being able to access medically-necessary health care, which means cities are no longer able to meaningfully offer transgender-inclusive health care to the dependents of their employees. In an effort to accurately reflect enforceable laws and policies, we concentrated on what the state law meant for the city being rated.

QUESTION 2

How could the MEI assess a list of cities as diverse as those selected while acknowledging that the smaller places rated may understandably have less capacity to engage on LGBTQ+ issues?

ANSWER

We addressed concerns about a small city’s capacity to affect change by building flexibility into the scorecard through the use of flex points and by providing multiple avenues through which to points.

QUESTION 3

What do MEI scores say about the atmosphere for LGBTQ+ people living and working in a particular place?

ANSWER

Even the most thoughtful survey of laws and policies cannot objectively assess the efficacy of enforcement and it certainly cannot encapsulate the lived experience of discrimination that many LGBTQ+ people—even those living in 100-point cities—face every day.

This question is best addressed by precisely defining what the MEI: the MEI is an evaluation of municipal laws and policies.

It is not a rating of the best places for LGBTQ+ people to live, nor is it an evaluation of the adequacy or effectiveness of enforcement.

Likewise, it is not an encapsulation of what it feels like to be an LGBTQ+ person walking down the street. Indeed, members of the LGBTQ+ community have many identities beyond their LGBTQ+ identification that may have more of an impact in their daily perception of safety and inclusivity, including race, gender, and immigration status. The MEI is not, and cannot be, a rating of lived experience because LGBTQ+ people have many different constellations of identities that create very different lived experiences.

To be clear, the MEI specifically rates cities on their laws and policies while respecting the legal and political context the city operates within. It is not a measure of an LGBTQ+ person’s lived experience in that city.

The MEI rates municipalities as small as Bethany Beach, Delaware (2010 population according to the US Census: 1,060) and as large as New York City (2010 population according to the US Census: 8,175,133). Such a range in city size creates concerns about ensuring that the efforts of small cities are not diminished in comparison to the capabilities of large cities.

Fairness dictates that the MEI not measure small cities against a standard only the metropolitan giants of the country can meet.

The MEI is designed to ensure that small cities have the same ability to score well on the MEI as large cities do.

First, while some of the criteria might be more challenging for a small city to accomplish, none of the non-flex criteria are prohibitive for small cities. Further, flexibility was built into the scoring system to acknowledge that a small city may accomplish the criteria in a slightly different manner: an LGBTQ+ liaison, for example, may have many other duties and a Human Rights Commission might be all-volunteer.

Second, the MEI uses flex points to ensure cities are not being held accountable for services that they simply are unable to provide. Points pertaining to a city’s administrative structure and capabilities are generally flex points and there often are multiple paths to earning the same set of points.

Having alternative paths to the same points and classifying some points as flex points accommodates the varying needs and capabilities of different sized cities.

An analysis of the MEI’s results over the past several editions shows these efforts to accommodate small cities worked: small cities were able to score comparably with the large cities.

More than half of the cities rated qualify as “small”, and these continue to be represented more or less proportionally across the range of scores, including top scores. In every edition, the data has shown that a city’s score is not well predicted by its size.

Cities are creations of the state. Cities are granted the power to govern by their states, and some states have multiple classes of cities that are invested with varying degrees of autonomy. Some cities are granted so much power that they have nearly complete independence, but other cities—particularly smaller cities—are more limited in the scope of their city government.

To be a worthwhile survey of cities across states, the MEI must be respectful of how different cities are from one another.

This is especially true when LGBTQ+ law is the subject being surveyed. Some cities are hampered from passing pro-equality laws by state law that limits their ability to do so; others come from states with strong pro-equality laws that ensure a high level of legal protections for all.

The MEI balances the influence of LGBTQ-inclusive state law by weighing state and local laws equally, and by not awarding double points to a city fortunate enough to have protections at both the state and local levels.

If a state has a comprehensive and inclusive non-discrimination law, a city may not be incentivized to pass an ordinance extending duplicative protections, but it should still have those protections reflected in its score.

Conversely, the city should be able to achieve a top score on the basis of municipal law alone—otherwise the MEI would not be a true evaluation of cities. The success of this balanced approach is demonstrated by a number of cities who were able to achieve top scores despite being in states that do not have pro-equality laws.

Some states restrict their cities from passing inclusive laws either by passing specific legislation that prohibits cities from doing so or through the application of Dillon’s Rule (which prevents cities from providing broader non-discrimination protections than those offered under state law) to LGBTQ-inclusive legislation.

An example of restrictive legislation is a Tennessee law that prohibits municipalities from passing non-discrimination ordinances that apply to private employers. Because of these types of restrictions, not every city has the power to enact the types of legislation that the MEI measures.

While some states prohibit cities from passing inclusive laws, other states impact the enforceability of inclusive municipal laws and policies by enacting anti-LGBTQ+ measures. These measures include gender-affirming care bans, preventing transgender kids from participating in sports and using facilities that align with their gender identity, and even prohibitions on discussions of LGBTQ+ topics in schools.

An example of anti-LGBTQ+ state legislation impacting municipal enforcement is a North Carolina law that bans gender-affirming care for people under 18. Because of this type of state legislation, many municipalities were unable to provide transgender-inclusive healthcare benefits to their employees and their dependents. Similarly, a state law in Florida that prohibits transgender people from using restroom facilities that align with their gender identity impacted municipalities’ non-discrimination protections in public accommodations.

Cities with a dedication to equality that are in Tennessee, Florida, and North Carolina, for example, will never be able to score as well as cities with comparable dedication to equality that exist in states without the restrictive or anti-LGBTQ+ laws.

However, the MEI provides avenues for cities who are dedicated to equality—as some cities in North Carolina and Tennessee are—to have that commitment reflected in their score despite restrictive or anti-LGBTQ+ state law: there are standard points to reflect city leadership’s advocacy against these types of state restrictions and flex points are offered for testing the limits of these restrictions.

It is understood that while these flex points help to level the playing field, a small number of cities suffering such restrictions may still find it extremely challenging—and, in some cases, perhaps impossible—to score a 100 on the MEI.

Although this may initially appear to be at odds with the MEI’s purpose of evaluating what cities do, the bottom line is that these vital protections don’t exist for the folks who live and work in these cities. That these cities will face an uphill battle in earning points for certain criteria on the MEI is a reflection of the actual difficulties they face as a result of restrictive state law.

Ameliorating the effect of a restrictive state law on the MEI score would be a dishonest representation of the protections that an impacted city can provide.

The MEI is an encapsulation of the best practices of inclusion followed by cities nationwide. It is a blueprint for positive change and an opportunity for cities to become aware of best practices in municipal equality. It is not a ranking of the friendliest cities to live in. It neither attempts to quantify how effectively cities enforce their laws, nor does it try to gauge the experience of an LGBTQ+ person interacting with the police or city hall.

Fair and respectful implementation of the best practices described by the MEI is crucial if the policies are to have any meaning. Realistically, the MEI simply has no objective way of measuring the quality of enforcement. Even the most thoughtful survey of laws and policies cannot objectively assess the efficacy of enforcement and it certainly cannot encapsulate the lived experience of discrimination that many LGBTQ+ people—even those living in 100 point cities—face every day.

The MEI does make some limited, blunt judgments about the existence of enforcement, however, without assessing that quality of that enforcement. For example, one of the harder questions the MEI faces is evaluating how seriously police departments take anti-LGBTQ+ related violence. While the MEI awards points to cities that report hate crimes statistics to the FBI, it does not evaluate whether the report made by the police department to the FBI is an accurate reflection of hate crimes, whether detectives competently collected evidence related to proving a hate-related motivation for the violence or whether the police department created a safe space for victims to come forward. It doesn’t measure how respectful police are when making a stop or how the police decide whom to stop.

Collecting and assessing such data in an objective, thorough way would be impossible. However, a city will not receive credit for reporting hate crimes if the city hasn’t reported any hate crimes of any kind this year or for five previous years. The MEI deems this effectively non-reporting because the probability is very low that a city truly experienced zero hate crimes of any kind in five years. While this is an imperfect proxy, it is the best measure the MEI has to determine if hate crimes are being taken seriously at the local level.

A 100-point city, then, may have terrific policies—a well-trained police force, a police liaison, and consistent hate crimes reporting—but nevertheless be an atmosphere in which LGBTQ+ people have intense fear of tangling with the police department. This fear may be magnified for LGBTQ+ people of color or undocumented LGBTQ+ immigrants, and the MEI reflects discrimination against those populations in only a general way. On the other hand, a police department in a 40-point city could have none of these policies but have a reputation for fair and respectful enforcement. The MEI specifically rates cities on their laws and policies; it is not a measure of an LGBTQ+ person’s living experience in that city.

ABOUT THE MEI TEAM

SARAH WARBELOW is the Vice President, Legal for the Human Rights Campaign, where she leads HRC’s team of litigators, policy attorneys and law fellows, and oversees the Municipal Equality and State Equality Indices.

CATHRYN OAKLEY is HRC’s Senior Director, Legal Policy and the founding author of the Municipal Equality Index. She supervises the Municipal Equality Index and State Equality Index as well as state and local policy work.

BRITTNY PHAM is the Manager for State and Municipal Programs, where she manages both the Municipal Equality Index and the State Equality Index each year. Brittny administers the resources for the MEI project to provide to cities and counties looking to make their communities more inclusive.

CHAUNCEY GRAHAM serves as Legislative Counsel at the Human Rights Campaign, focusing on state and municipal level advocacy. He handles a range of issues, including those related to discrimination laws, conversion therapy bans, and LGBTQ+ youth.

To reach the MEI team with questions, comments, suggestions, or other resources, please email mei@hrc.org.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The MEI is an unmatched assessment of municipal equality that would not see the light of day without the commitment and contributions of many individuals working together over the course of the entire year.

This year we extend a special thanks to HRC colleagues Samantha Griffith, JoDee Winterhof, Alec Carrasco, Laurel Powell, Sam Lau, Kathryn Smith, Robert Villaflor, Carly Fox, Makare Saunders, Amy Oden, Hillary Esquina, Jose Soto, Simon Garcia, Lynne Bowman, Bridget Sharpe, and HRC’s McCleary Law Fellows and Legal Interns.

Finally, thanks to Noted Branding for making the magic of the MEI come to life.

EQUALITY FEDERATION INSTITUTE

As always, this work happens because of our dedicated partners at the Equality Federation Institute. The achievements we celebrate in this publication are often theirs. The state groups on the following page deserve a special mention for their engagement and support this year.

For questions or additional information, please contact mei@hrc.org or visit www.hrc.org/mei.