Democratic bills aim to rein in library book challenges in Michigan

• Efforts to remove or limit access to sexual-themed books have become more common in Michigan public libraries
• A two-bill package that may receive a vote in December would limit such restrictions
• Under the proposed law, removals would be limited to books considered obscene by the Constitution  

Democrats in the Michigan Legislature may use their remaining time in control to make it virtually impossible to remove sexually themed books from libraries.

The bills, which have 23 Democratic co-sponsors, would apply to community and district libraries, but not school libraries. They are expected to receive a hearing in early December in the House Government Operations Committee, said Carol Glanville, D-Walker, a sponsor of one of the two-bill package.

Republicans take control of the House in January, giving Democrats one limited time to push through their priorities. In 2025, Republicans will hold the majority in the House, while Democrats will retain control in the Senate and the governor’s office.

“It looks quite popular so I’m hopeful we’ll be able to get it for a vote,” Glanville told Bridge Michigan Monday.

Related:

• Alpena backs away from firing library board after sex-themed books are moved
• Alpena voters approve library tax, despite fuss over sex-themed books
• A compromise offers hope for Michigan library defunded over LGBTQ books
• Michigan library book bans: lessons from a federal Texas case

House Bills 6034 and 6035 are a response to local battles over books that some library patrons consider inappropriate for young people. Many of the challenged books have themes of LGBTQ relationships, with some including illustrations of sex acts.

The “Freedom to Read Act” would dramatically limit the ability of residents to challenge books by:

• Limiting patrons who can challenge library material to residents of the community.
• Requiring challengers to certify to having read the entire book or watched the full movie and not just an offensive portion of the material.
• Mandating that library directors, not typically-elected library boards, would have sole discretion over library materials.
• Only allowing libraries to approve removal requests if materials have “been adjudicated to be obscene or otherwise unprotected” by the US or Michigan constitutions.

The 1973 US Supreme Court ruling, Miller v. California, ruled the First Amendment protects works with “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” That is a high standard that has all but eliminated obscenity rulings. 

In 2022, a Virginia court dismissed petitions to declare obscene one of the most challenged books in Michigan, the graphic novel, Gender Queer: A Memoir,” a coming-of-age story about nonbinary person that includes illustrations of sex acts.

Currently, every Michigan community library can set their own standards. By mandating a state standard, library officials can point to the state law as the basis for their decisions on book challenges.

“What we’re trying to do is support libraries and take some of the pressure off the local librarians so there’s not so much personal attack going on,” Glanville said.

The bills are opposed by some representatives including Steve Carra, R-Three Rivers. 

“Society has compelled taxpayers to fund these locations. To me, that gives us a heightened responsibility to scrutinize what goes into those libraries and to not expose kids to pornographic material,” Carra said.

Book challenges have increased in frequency and ferocity in recent years.  That’s a reflection of the growing number of sexually frank books published for teens, as LGBTQ themes have become more accepted, said Debbie Mikula, executive director of the Michigan Library Association.

Those books didn’t exist a generation ago, Mikula said. 

“There is different content out there, and I think that’s because authors didn’t have something to look up when they were growing up to help them feel comfortable talking about their personal experiences,” she said.”

Though “some people in our society may consider (the books) unconventional or unacceptable,” Mikula said, these bills “protect citizens’ rights to receive information without censorship.”