Bill Banning Whites-Only Housing Passes by Just One Vote

[applegrove]

Bill Banning Whites-Only Housing Passes by Just One Vote

May 6, 2026 at 1:38 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 116 Comments

https://politicalwire.com/2026/05/06/bill-banning-whites-only-housing-passes-by-just-one-vote/

A bill banning white-only housing passed the Pennsylvania House, despite not a single Republican supporting the measure, WHTM reports.

The bill would close a loophole in the state that could let white nationalist groups establish communities under the guise of a private club or member-only organization.

[bamagal62]

1. "Not a single Republican supporting the measure"

[dave99]

4. So Republicans in PA are white only people

[ColoringFool]

5. Republicans Be Republicans.

[Skittles]

23. yup

repukes gonna repuke

[pat_k]

6. Trumplublicans

Last edited Wed May 6, 2026, 06:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Our federal and state governments have been co-opted and infiltrated by people who have NO PLACE in a legitimate American government.

These people are defined by one or more of the following characteristics:

Does the bidding of Trump, no matter how corrupt, criminal, cruel, or destructive to our freedoms, our families, and our futures.

Abuses power to line their own pockets, the pockets of others in their gang, and the pockets of their billionaire backers.

Advances a racist agenda that seeks to reverse decades of social progress and seeks to purge African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, and other people of color from our history, our civil service, and our elected offices.

Advances a Christian Nationalist agenda. That is, they are committed to passing laws that impose their PERSONAL religious beliefs on Americans who DO NOT SHARE those beliefs. Seeking to pass such laws is both deeply Un-Christian and Un-American.

Is determined to deport as many people of color who have come to this nation from elsewhere as possible, regardless of whether they are naturalized citizens, documented, or undocumented.

We need a label for these people. A shorthand.

The label I use is trumpublicans. My definition of trumpublican clearly distinguishes it from the broader terms MAGA or Republican.

We must draw a red line. Trumpublicans have NO PLACE in a legitimate American government.

Our electeds and candidates must pledge to purge these people from federal and state government.

More here:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100221221890

[FadedMullet]

13. Great post. Your thoughts on a "red line" should be our goal going forward.

[ColoringFool]

24. I Beg To Disagree Onaccounta You Give Way Too Much [Read: ANY AT ALL].....

Acceptance to "Republicans" in general and especially "MAGA" in particular!

THEY ARE ALL, TO A ONE, OF A PIECE! AND VOTE THAT WAY!

And no, I don't care about the specifically anti-Trump REPUBLICANS like Adam K., Cheney, Michael Cohen.

Let me know when they become registered Democrats.

[pat_k]

26. You neednt use use label, but a distinction must be made between...

...that which is intolerable in a legitimate American government, and that which is a matter of legitimate public policy on which we have VERY strong views.

The characteristics/agendas/conduct I name cross a red line. I name and label those "red line" attributes and explicitly define the label to exclude people who support policies that members of the Democratic Party strenuously oppose, providing that 1) the person is defined by none of the red line characteristics, and 2) the policy is consistent with the fundamental moral principles reflected in our constitution.

I don't care how it is done -- whether by defining and labeling as a shorthand as I suggest, or by focusing on the redline attributes themselves (which I think complicates messaging, YMMV).

What is SERIOUSLY problematic is overgeneralizing.

Frankly, just being a racist does not cross a red line in American. Each of us has a right to hold hatreds, personal animosities, or other awful beliefs in our hearts. (Just as we have a right to hold more benevolent, compassionate beliefs). Where the red line is crossed is when people break the law to harm or discriminate, or they empoy the levers of governmental power, whether judicial, legislative, or executive, to implement those personal beliefs as a matter of enforceable public policy. Doing that is an intolerable violation of constitutional moral principles.

Certain courts, executive agencies, and executive offices have been co-opted and rendered illegitimate by people who have successfully advanced red line agendas. However, that does not make all federal and state courts, all state executive agencies and all state offices illegitimate. The intolerable people, conduct, and agendas must be purged to restore legitimacy. We need to build consensus that a commitment to that project transcends EVERYTHING else, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to get back on the road to a legitimate "more perfect union" with segments of our government operating outside constitutional moral principles. Working toward that consensus and commitment is a targeted, doable project that is consistent with American constitutional moral principles.

And while the infiltration of trumplicans (as I define them) and submission to trumpublican forces has rendered the Republican Party illegitimate, they have a choice. Purge those elements and define the party based on legitimate policy differences or remain pariahs. What we will never accomplish is eliminating the party entirely, and I think it is counter-productive to even try.

What is NOT consistent with American constitutional moral principles is declaring that PERSONAL beliefs -- beliefs people understand are theirs; beliefs they understand must not be allowed to be implemented as enforceable public policy in ANY WAY -- must be purged from the American psyche.

I think that if we do not stop with generalizations that are frankly false -- if we keep trying to demonize as intolerable everything encompassed by labels like "MAGA" and "Republican" -- labels that encompass a mix of things that are legitimate public policy differences, or legitimate matters of personal belief ("personal" in that they understand that in America it is intolerable to impose those beliefs on others), we are in deep shit.

It is like the difference between trying to demonize delegitimize, and purge "Christians," instead of focusing on demonizing, delegitimizing, and purging Christian Nationalists. The former is patently Un-American and intolerable, the latter is an absolute necessity to preserve a legitimate American government. (Discussed in this post).

[peppertree]

15. White, Protestant - and of a far-right persuasion

Far-right, Opus Dei-type Catholics (like Alito) are tolerated - if they're willing to play second fiddle.

All other White folks are very much considered "race traitors" who've (somehow) wronged them and must be dealt with accordingly.

Having grown in Mi'ssippi, a lot of this is a trip down memory lane.

[live love laugh]

10. Huh? If Republicans don't support this who voted for it then?

[SSJVegeta]

18. The democrats supported banning white only housing

Republicans opposed

[twodogsbarking]

2. RepubliKKKlans.

[Wiz Imp]

3. Unfortunately, the bill will not pass the Senate as Republicans still have a majority there

[kerry-is-my-prez]

7. What has happened to this country??? Did we get teleported to the 1950's??

[paleotn]

9. They never left the 50's. 1850's.

[paleotn]

8. If you were wondering....Republican equals racist.

[gulliver]

11. It also has provisions relating to sex/gender stuff

"The bill also expands anti-discrimination protections for employment, housing, and public accommodations to a person’s sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression."

(From the abc27.com article linked in the politicalwire.com article.)

https://www.abc27.com/pennsylvania-politics/bill-banning-whites-only-housing-passes-pennsylvania-house-by-1-vote/

It does make me wonder if the bill would pass were it only about "whites-only housing." If so, just divide it into two bills. But why have any bills? Denying housing based on identity seems illegal on its face under federal law. Otherwise, all of the various yahoo identities would just move to whatever state lets them can set up their own Waco Branch Davidian (etc.) compounds and cult communities.

[lastlib]

17. (But look who's "enforcing" federal law......)

Yeah, it's illegal, but with fox guarding chicken-coop, naught will be done.

[Joinfortmill]

21. Not good. No good at all. Some days I'm glad I'm old.

[Ruby the Liberal]

25. Why I like the red hats

If they want to publucally self identify - then I'm all for it. An exception to let them wall themselves off from the world isn't the worst idea.

But its truly chilling to think what the outcome would be for situations like inner-city apartment buildings. Back to the old days of real estate redlining...

[perdita9]

12. Thanks for posting this

We live in Pennsylvania and out local media rarely covers stuff like this

[B.See]

14. Just in case

we needed yet another reminder of who and WHAT they are.

[Skittles]

16. JFC

[Joinfortmill]

19. Jeezus. At least it past.

[hlthe2b]

20. Wow... If Immigration debacle has awakened more and more R Latinos, surely this kind of thing

will do so with those remaining few black R's? I will never understand how any POC, any Asian, or frankly any woman of any race, can vote for these monsters.

[electric_blue68]

22. Well. THAT'S rascist and pathetic!