Voters in only one state will be asked this November to weigh in on an LGBT civil rights issue, and this is unusual for several reasons:

It’s the first time voters in any state will have been asked to vote on a law aimed at prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity.

It’s happening in Massachusetts, a state with one of the best records of prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people.

And, it’s been six years since any state has taken up any anti-LGBT ballot measure.

Also unusual: Anti-LGBT activists in two other states tried to put similar measures on the ballot this year but failed to collect enough signatures.

One reason for the tiny number of anti-LGBT ballot measures this year has to be the fact that, in one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court wiped out the work of anti-LGBT ballot measures in almost 40 states over marriage for same-sex couples. But another could be that LGBT groups have just gotten better at pre-emptive strikes.

“As we hear about folks wanting to mount ballot initiatives targeting our community members, we have been impactful in being able to talk to public about why they shouldn’t sign those petitions” to get the measures on the ballot, said Victoria Kirby York, deputy director the NGLTFQ Task Force’s department of the Advocacy and Action.

That’s what happened in South Dakota and Montana. In Montana, the Pride Foundation urged supporters to work on a “decline to sign” campaign of calling and canvassing as many voters as possible.

In South Dakota, proponents of an anti-LGBT ballot measured failed to get enough signatures to put the issue before voters, and also failed to get enough interest in the legislature to enact it as a bill.

“As LGBTQ people boldly come out and share their stories, many Americans are realizing that someone in their family, or even a close friend, is LGBTQ,” says Stephen Peters, senior national press secretary for the Human Rights Campaign.“ And research has shown that, when people know someone who is LGBTQ, they are far more likely to support equality under the law.”

The numbers certainly suggest a shift has occurred. In 2004, there were 13 anti-LGBT measures on state ballots (and all passed); in 2006, there were nine (all but one passed), and in 2012, there were five (only one passed).

Adding to that was a discernible push back in 2016, when the North Carolina legislature passed a law (HB2) targeting LGBT people by conjuring up a concern for public safety in public restrooms. Within months, several major corporations, sporting events, and states and major cities refused to do business with North Carolina. Polls showed the public didn’t like the law. And the incumbent governor lost re-election.

Peters called it a “watershed moment for LGBTQ voters and allies.”

“North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory was the only incumbent governor of either party to lose re-election and the only incumbent governor to lose re-election in North Carolina’s history — in large part due to his discriminatory, anti-LGBTQ HB2 law.”

Legislators in Montana took note of North Carolina when an anti-LGBT transgender bathroom bill began circulating there this year. The Billings Gazettequoted State Rep. Kathy Kelker as telling a audience that major corporations boycotted North Carolina after it passed a bill and warned that Montana could experience the same reaction.

“Transgender individuals have been using bathrooms in Montana for generations, and there’s never been an incident,” Kelker told the group. “Never. It’s a nonissue.”

Legal groups have been heavily involved, too. In Montana, for instance, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the original language of the proposed ballot measure. The Montana Supreme Court ruled the ballot measure language was too vague.

So, why is there a ballot measure on the issue in Massachusetts this year?

The Mass. confusion

NGLTF’s York says the ballot measure is still on in Massachusetts in part because there is a relatively low threshold of signatures needed to clear a petition there: 32,375. That’s three percent of the number of people who voted in the last gubernatorial election. And while Massachusetts is generally seen as a “overwhelmingly blue state,” says York, it has a popular Republican governor and the occasional tendency for “folks to go rogue there.”

The ballot measure there this year –known as Question 3– is a referendum on a law passed by the legislature and signed by Republican Governor Charlie Baker two years ago. That law requires all places of public accommodation (restrooms, hotels, restaurants, etc.) to provide access to people “consistent with the person’s gender identity.”

The law has had widespread support among some of the state’s most beloved institutions, including the Red Sox and the Patriots, and from such major corporations as Blue Cross Blue Shield. And the latest two polls look great for transgender equality, mostly.

One poll–of 500 likely voters surveyed between September 13 and 17 – found 73 percent would vote “Yes” to keep the law, 17 percent would vote “No,” and about 10 percent were undecided. (The poll was conducted by the Suffolk University Political Research Center using live telephone interviews via landlines and cell phones; the margin of error is plus-or-minus 4.4 percent.)

The second poll–of 791 registered voters surveyed between October 1 and 7—found 73 percent would vote “Yes,” 21 percent would vote “No,” and six percent were undecided. (The poll was conducted by the Center for Public Opinion at UMass-Lowell using landlines and cellphones; the margin of error was plus-or-minus 3.9 percent.) Even among Republicans, the transgender law appears to be winning, 59 percent to 40 percent.

Polls on LGBT ballot measures have not been reliable in predicting real outcomes, but the 50-plus point spread between the yeas and the nays is much larger than typically exists this close to election day. In June, the Suffolk pollsters found only a 12 percent difference: 49 percent said they would “oppose repealing,” 37 percent would “support repealing,” 13 percent were undecided.

Some of the change in polls since June could be due to wording. In June, the Suffolk pollster told survey participants that the ballot measure would repeal the law “which allowed transgender people to use public restrooms and locker rooms.” But in September, Suffolk pollster told survey participants it “would keep in place the current law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity in places of public accommodation.”

Joshua Dyck, co-director of the UMass poll said “nearly a quarter of respondents gave inconsistent answers on their views when asked about the ballot question and whether transgender individuals should be required to use restrooms corresponding to their birth gender.”

“When it comes to Question 3,” he said, “there is still a lot of confusion among voters as to what it means and what it will do.”

            Meanwhile, there was one other gender identity ballot measure that did not make it to the ballot this year. In California, a Los Angeles artist named Ashley Gore, 26, tried to put a measure on the ballot to amend the state constitution to declare that everyone has the right to “free exercise and enjoyment of gender identity without discrimination or preference.” Supporters were unable to collect the more than 585,000 signatures they needed to put the measure on the ballot.