online opt-in
Morning Consult
Morning Consult poll for The Trevor Project: Florida Voters On Anti-LGBTQ Policies · May 13–18, 2022 · US: Florida
Methodology
- Pollster
- Morning Consult commercial
- Sponsor
- The Trevor Project
- Commissioned by
- The Trevor Project
- Fielded
- May 13–18, 2022
- Population
- registered voters
- Sample size
- 300
- Sample frame
- online opt-in
- Panel
- Morning Consult (panel not named in the memo)
- Mode
- online - self-administered web interviews
- Margin of error
- plus or minus 6 percentage points
- Weighting
- weighted to approximate a target sample of Registered Voters based on gender by age, educational attainment, race, marital status, home ownership, race by educational attainment, and 2020 presidential vote
- Geography
- US: Florida
Sources
Verification note. All figures read directly from the Morning Consult memo 'Florida Voters On Anti-LGBTQ Policies' prepared for The Trevor Project (PDF page 1). The memo is a narrative summary, not a topline: it prints results but not the literal question wording for most items, so most question_text values here are the memo's own descriptions and are flagged question_text_verbatim=false. The one verbatim stem in the document (the gender-affirming-care battery) appears on the Texas page and is reused here because the memo reports the same battery for Florida. The memo's sentence 'Laws restricting gender-affirming care for trans youth are just as unpopular as more extreme policies criminalizing it, at 41% and 40% respectively' is ambiguous as to which side 41/40 measure, so those two numbers are deliberately NOT recorded. Memo is dated June 2022 internally; the file was posted 2022-07-08.
Figures below are transcribed from these documents. Where they disagree with the source, the source governs.
Questions asked (6)
vote likelihood for a candidate who supports criminalizing gender-affirming health care for trans youth
Whether the respondent is more or less likely to vote for a candidate who supports criminalizing gender-affirming healthcare for trans youth.
Wording reconstructed from: Morning Consult memo for The Trevor Project (Florida page); the memo reports the result but does not print the literal item wording.
Less likely
42%
More likely
24%
Wording notes: uses 'criminalizing' rather than a neutral policy description | advocacy-sponsored poll
tilts_affirming — 'Criminalizing gender-affirming healthcare' is the framing an opponent of the policy would choose; a neutral rendering would describe the legal restriction without the criminal-law verb. The sponsor is an LGBTQ youth advocacy organization.
Subgroup figures (3)
vote likelihood for a politician who wants to ban social transition for trans youth
Whether the respondent is more or less likely to vote for politicians who want to ban social transition (like how trans kids dress or cut their hair in ways that affirm their identity).
Wording reconstructed from: Morning Consult memo for The Trevor Project (Florida page); result reported narratively, literal wording not printed.
Less likely
42%
More likely
21%
Wording notes: 'social transition' is defined sympathetically in terms of dress and hair | advocacy-sponsored poll
tilts_affirming — Defining social transition only as clothing and haircuts presents the most benign version of the practice and makes a ban look maximally intrusive.
conditions under which transgender minors should have access to gender-affirming medical care
Which of the following comes closest to your opinion, even if none are exactly right?
Transgender minors should not have access to gender-affirming medical care
21%
Should have access if recommended by their doctor and/or supported by their parents (net of the two access options) 54%
Wording notes: three of four options permit access under some condition, one denies it | no option for a flat legal ban framed as such
tilts_affirming — The option set is unbalanced: three affirming or parent-deferring options against a single restrictive one, which mechanically raises the combined 'should have access' figure the memo headlines.
making it illegal to provide gender-affirming care to transgender youth
Support or opposition to making it illegal to provide gender-affirming care to transgender youth.
Wording reconstructed from: Morning Consult memo for The Trevor Project (Florida page); result reported narratively.
Wording notes: restriction framed as making care 'illegal'
neutral — A ban on providing the care is accurately described as making it illegal; both directions are available. Only the oppose figure was published.
restricting transgender youths' ability to socially transition
Support or opposition to restricting transgender youths' ability to socially transition, by dressing or cutting their hair in ways that affirm that identity.
Wording reconstructed from: Morning Consult memo for The Trevor Project (Florida page); result reported narratively.
Wording notes: social transition defined only as dress and hair
tilts_affirming — Reducing social transition to clothing and haircuts makes the restriction sound trivially intrusive and understates what a social-transition policy covers in practice.
banning classroom instruction about LGBTQ topics including sexual orientation and gender identity
Banning classroom instruction about LGBTQ topics, including sexual orientation and gender identity, in school.
Total Oppose
43%
Total Support
40%
Don't Know / No Opinion
17%
Wording notes: policy framed as a 'ban' | explicitly names gender identity, so in scope
neutral — Describes Florida's Parental Rights in Education law close to how supporters and opponents both describe its instructional restriction; 'ban' is the operative mechanism rather than a loaded add-on.