Four states have started 2025 with anti-book ban bills on the table. Let’s take a brief look at what they say, who is behind them, and what you can do if you’re a resident of any of these states.
New Mexico
Last year, New Mexico proposed an anti-book ban bill, but it died before progressing in legislature. It wasn’t that there was not interest; rather, time ran out on hearing the proposed new law.
Kathleen Cates has drafted a new take on the anti-book ban measure for 2025 with House Bill 27. This bill follows the templates of those like Illinois’s, where a pool of money for public libraries is tied to compliance with the bill.
Dubbed the “Librarian Protection Act,” the bill would require any public library to have the American Library Association’s library bill of rights in their collection policies (or a policy comparable to it). Libraries would be required to have policies noting that they do not ban books on the basis of “partisan or doctrinal disapproval of the material’s content or based on the author’s race, nationality, gender identity, sexual orientation or political or religious views pursuant to rules promulgated by the state librarian.”
This bill likewise notes that a political subdivision of the state cannot reduce library funding because the library complies with the anti-book banning bill. In other words, a city or town cannot decide they will reduce the library’s budget because they are in disagreement with the anti-book ban stance.
New Mexico library advocates are excited for this bill and for the longer legislative session in 2025. A new grassroots anti-book ban advocacy group will launch in support of this bill–as well as other pro-library, anti-book ban initiatives–on January 29. You can learn about the meeting and about New Mexicans Against Book Bans here.
Arkansas
Pre-filed in advance of the legislative session by Andrew Collins, House Bill 1028 is also modeled after Illinois legislation in that it ties compliance with anti-book ban policies to a pool of funds for libraries. But it expands upon the bill, bolstering protections for library workers.
At the tail end of 2024, a federal judge struck down two portions of Arkansas’s draconian book banning bill, Act 372, deeming those parts unconstitutional. House Bill 1028 would further redline the restrictive parts of that bill and then provide criminal protections for library workers and school employees when claims are made that they have provided “obscene material.”
Arkansans can write to their state representatives in support of the bill. Likewise, get to know the work being done by groups like Advocates for All Arkansas Libraries, who were among those instrumental in the overturning of parts of Act 372. Their website currently has information about where 2024 candidates for state office stood on issues relating to libraries, and it can help with where and how you craft your letters to representatives in support of this anti-book ban bill.
Michigan
Two bills have been introduced in Michigan to protect public libraries from book banning. These are House Bill 6034, sponsored by Veronica Paiz, as well as House Bill 6035, sponsored by Carol Glanville.
House Bill 6034 would require that every public library in the state have a collection development policy, and those collection development policies must explain the entire life cycle of materials in the library–how items are selected, who selects them, how items are removed, and what criteria are used to remove items. The bill also requires that libraries include in their policies how materials can be challenged by individuals and what that process looks like.
One of the most important pieces of this bill is this second part. People who wish to challenge materials are allowed to do so, but that individual challenging the material must have read and reviewed the entire material and they have to be a resident of the library’s service area. Outside challenges or those drawn from simply reading some reviews or copy-pasting complaints from others won’t fly.
A couple of other pieces of this legislation that are noteworthy:
A reason or basis for a request for reconsideration cannot be made based on the religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, height, weight, familial status, or marital status of the author or because the subject matter, content, or viewpoint of the material involves religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, height, weight, familial status, or marital status.
and
A public library shall not grant a request for reconsideration based on the subject matter, content, or viewpoint of material, unless the material has been adjudicated to be obscene or otherwise unprotected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or by section 5 of article I of the state constitution of 1963, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction over the community in which the public library serves.
“Inappropriate” as a determining factor is out the window, since the bill requires adherence to the prevailing standard of “obscenity” as defined by the Miller Test.
House Bill 6035 is the same bill as above, but it applies to district libraries in Michigan.
If you live in Michigan, write to your state representatives in support of both these bills. These bills both apply solely to public libraries, but anti-book ban advocates are encouraged to write in support of a similar bill applicable to public school libraries. You can get involved with anti-book ban and pro-library work in Michigan through the grassroots organization MI Right to Read.
Missouri
Last but not least, there is a prefiled bill in Missouri aimed at protecting public library collections from book banning. Missouri, a state which has been among the most censorship-friendly since this recent rise in book banning, may find a bill like this to be an especially difficult and uphill battle, but it is crucial that advocates in the state support the measure. Your voice, especially in places like this, makes a difference and sends the message that you understand what is truly at stake right now for your public institutions of democracy.
Anthony Ealy introduced House Bill 95 prior to the legislative session. It is extremely straightforward. No library which receives funds from the federal or state government can ban or restrict access to books because of partisan or doctrinal beliefs. Likewise, the bill notes that compliance with that part of the law does not mean that the library acts as a government mouthpiece–in other words, libraries don’t have to acquire anything specific because they are in compliance with the anti-book banning measure.
Libraries get to make decisions that meet the needs of their communities, but they do not get to remove or restrict materials based on political beliefs from those communities.
Once again, write to your elected representatives in support of this bill, and while you do that, share statistics to bolster your support. You can pull numbers from research, including what parents think about libraries. Most believe libraries are safe, most have never had young people borrow material that made either them or their child uncomfortable, and librarians ranked in the top five most trusted professionals.
There is tremendous opportunity for anti-book ban, pro-library advocates in Missouri to develop a statewide advocacy group, a la the Texas Freedom to Read and Florida Freedom to Read Projects.
While these anti-book ban measures do not end book censorship more broadly, they are crucial for what they do in terms of protecting libraries, protecting library workers, and most importantly, state acknowledgement of an ongoing problem plaguing libraries.
You have the power and capacity to change the tide of book banning. If you live in any of the above states, take the small steps to support these measures.