Some Ohio lawmakers are following in the footsteps of federal legislators with a bill to ban the policing of hairstyles based on racial stereotypes.

Eboney Thornton, communications coordinator at the Center for Community Solutions, said some businesses or schools have policies discouraging ethnic hair types, and even prohibit styles like braids, Bantu knots, cornrows and locs and dreadlocks.

"People of color, particularly Black women and Hispanic, end up having to do something to their hair that's unnatural for them," Thornton explained. "Or they may wear wigs, they may chemically process their hair to be in compliance of that particular dress code."

The U.S. House passed the CROWN Act in March to prohibit the denial of employment or educational opportunities because of a person's hair texture or protective hairstyle. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who voted against the measure, called it a distraction from more important issues. Shortly after, House Bill 668 was introduced at the state level.

Currently, Civil Rights Act Title VII only offers protections for the hairstyle known as an Afro.

Thornton pointed out often, policies intended to discriminate against certain cultures also penalize others.

"A lot of the dress codes, a lot of rules say you can't color your hair a certain way. You can't wear certain braids; you can't have your hair a certain length," Thornton outlined. "It doesn't just affect Black and brown. It affects white girls; it affects white boys who may be growing their hair out to donate."

A dozen states have passed laws prohibiting discrimination based on hair texture. Thornton argued as the world grows and changes, hair-based discrimination could drive qualified and talented workers away from Ohio, hindering economic progress.

"And that's kind of what Ohio is built on," Thornton contended. "We are creative, we are innovative, and we want to keep building that. So, if we stop penalizing people for how they look or how they're wearing their hair, just imagine how great that we can be."

Akron, Cincinnati, Cleveland Heights and Columbus have passed similar CROWN Act laws.

Reporting by Ohio News Connection in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.

A set of border security bills under consideration by Texas lawmakers will cause harm to migrants, residents, and state law, according to a state civil rights group.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas is opposed to Senate Bill 11, which would make it a state crime for illegally entering Texas from Mexico, and authorize state police to arrest violators.

It's similar to legislation that failed to pass in an earlier session this year.

Traditionally, the Texas Legislature met every other year - but this is the third time lawmakers have convened in 2023.

ACLU Senior Staff Attorney David Donatti said the never-ending sessions are relentless and exhausting voters.

"A part of what makes it feel so relentless is that this is a special legislative session," said Donatti, "and it is perplexing and troubling, and not the way that the Texas Constitution or laws envisioning lawmaking in the state is supposed to happen."

Donatti said Texas should treat immigration like the human right that it is and create a humane, fair and welcoming process - instead of dehumanizing narratives.

The bills have bogged down due to infighting, and the special session will end tomorrow. Should they pass, Donatti said citizens and non-citizens could be subjected to racial profiling and harassment.

Earlier this year Texas began deploying chains of specially designed buoys down the middle of the Rio Grande River to deter migrants from crossing illegally.

Another deterrent used is "concertina" or razor wire - which Donatti said he's witnessed.

"I've been on the border and I have seen the concertina wire, and I've not only seen the concertina wire I've seen families separated by the concertina wire," said Donatti. "And it really defies all common sense - and it defies all humanity."

Last week a judge ordered federal border patrol agents not to interfere with razor wire that Texas has installed. A second hearing in the case is scheduled for this week.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

In Arkansas and across the nation, book bans are becoming more common. The American Library Association says there were almost 700 attempts to censor library materials nationwide from January to August, and more than 1,900 challenges of specific book titles.

In Saline County, Patty Hector said she was removed from her position as library director for not banning books.

She said a county judge and Quorum Court wrote a resolution advising her to pick out "harmful" books and move them so children couldn't access them. Hector said her response led to her being fired.

"There's no place in the library that people can't get to. So I said no, and then that was what got me in trouble," she said. "I said no to them. And you don't say 'no' to a bunch of men. And the books they picked out are LGBTQ and race - two-thirds of them are."

As Hector described it, a resolution accusing her of fraud "was written by the Saline County Republican Committee." She added that after the committee reported her for "violating the Freedom of Information Act 90 times," she had to spend many months answering questions about her job and library expenses.

Hector said the committee also put up a billboard on Interstate 30 that said "Stop X-Rated library books, SalineLibrary.com."

She said some Arkansas lawmakers worked to pass a bill that would criminalize librarians - but that law was blocked by a federal judge this year.

"Act 372 was going to make it a felony for a librarian to give anybody a book that's 'obscene,' which they couldn't define," she said, "and that has been determined by a judge to be unconstitutional."

Hector noted that several books with topics on sex education and homosexuality were under scrutiny. And a book entitled "The Talk", about conversations that Black parents have with their children, was another title the committee objected to.

Fair-housing advocates are concerned about changes the Legislature made to tighten restrictions on emotional-support animals for Montana renters.

While Montana House Bill 703 prohibits a landlord from asking detailed questions about a potential renter's medical condition or diagnosis, landlords are now allowed to ask the renter's health care provider if their emotional support animal is medically necessary before deciding whether to rent to a tenant.

Amy Hall, a board member of the nonprofit Montana Fair Housing, said the law creates potential roadblocks for would-be tenants because it requires them to have a relationship with a Montana health care provider for at least a month before being able to provide verification to the landlord.

"Sometimes that can pose a hardship for tenants," Hall contended. "Because they may not have lived in Montana for 30 days and they may not have established a relationship with a provider here."

The law also holds tenants liable for damages the emotional support animal may do to the landlord's property. The statute only applies to emotional support animals. It does not apply to service animals such as seeing-eye dogs with special training to help people with disabilities perform everyday tasks.

Hall pointed out federal law still applies in Montana, which states the verification of the need for an emotional support animal does not always have to come from a certified medical professional in order for the applicant to get a lease. She added, however, it will take something more official than an online document -- which have become popular in recent years -- to verify the animal is medically and emotionally necessary for the renter.

"That's just a warning to all tenants out there," Hall stressed. "If your only verification that you need an emotional support animal is that you have some kind of online certificate, your landlord may question that, and may ask for sufficient verification of your need for the emotional support animal and of your disability."

The new law went into effect Oct. 1.