The Alabama Public Library Service (APLS) earlier this summer unveiled a set of sample policies designed to help local libraries across the state comply with administrative code changes adopted over the past two years. These changes, which have generated controversy, direct local libraries to restrict certain content or face the risk of losing state aid.
The APLS presented three example policies, labeled A, B, and C, each with a different format but incorporating elements from the updates approved by the APLS board in 2024 and 2025. According to John Wahl, chair of the APLS Board and Republican nominee for lieutenant governor, the samples are not mandatory but offer “ideas where they could take them to their local boards” and “make any edits they wanted,” particularly for libraries without staff dedicated to drafting such policies. Wahl made these comments in an interview on Thursday.
The first administrative code updates, ratified by board members in 2024, mandated that libraries create policies restricting minors’ access to materials deemed obscene, sexually explicit, or “otherwise inappropriate.” A second set of updates by APLS Board members in 2025 further prohibited library materials dealing with “gender ideology,” a term that was not defined within the new rules.
Mary Campbell, president of the Alabama Library Association, criticized the new direction, stating that past policy requirements were “much more broad and open” and allowed local boards to tailor policies to community needs. She added, “These do not allow you to do that.”
These administrative code changes followed campaigns by right-wing activists, both in Alabama and nationally, who claimed that youth sections in libraries contained explicit or sexually suggestive materials. Some books targeted in these campaigns used inclusive pronouns, leading critics to suggest the books were being singled out for having LGBTQ+ themes or characters. Read Freely Alabama, a group formed to oppose the changes, issued a statement criticizing Wahl and board member Amy Minton. The group argued that the policies “make clear that this was never about protecting children from explicit content,” contending that libraries are compelled to treat books about transgender people and gender identity as inherently sexually explicit, a definition they claim changes to reflect board members' preferences regardless of actual sexual content.
The Fairhope Public Library is the only library so far to forfeit state aid after refusing to remove specific materials that the APLS board had objected to.
The sample policies all include a statement banning discrimination but with a specific caveat to align with the new administrative code. This caveat clarifies that “exercising discretion in the location of sexually explicit material” for children “does not constitute a denial of service on the basis of age.” It further notes that considering age when recommending or displaying materials also does not constitute age-based denial of service. Wahl explained that the different examples accommodate various library structures and local protocols.
While varying in specificity, all sample policies refer to particular elements of the administrative code and offer justifications. The main changes imposed by board members on the administrative code addressed library collections, the reshelving of materials, library cards, content displays, and membership with the American Library Association.
Example A, described as the least specific, includes selection criteria with bullet points for relevance, quality, and demand. It states that its criteria “safeguard minors from sexually explicit or other material deemed…inappropriate for children or youth.” The section to reshelve library materials in Example A outlined the same criteria restricting minors from specific materials and addressed the gender ideology ban. It specified that materials concerning transgender procedures, gender ideology, or the concept of more than two biological genders are considered inappropriate for children and youth.
Example C included more details. It had a section titled “Application and Purpose” that focused on protecting minors from obscene, sexually explicit, or other material deemed inappropriate for children or youth by the local library board. Its section for selecting materials included a numbered list of rules, largely consistent with Example A, but added that “All materials intended for minors must be reviewed and approved by designated library staff.” Example C also detailed a process for citizens to file complaints regarding library materials, stating that residents may, upon furnishing proof of residency, initiate a Request of Reconsideration by filling out an applicable form. These requests, it adds, are reviewed according to established criteria and procedures to ensure transparency and citizen input.
Mary Campbell acknowledged that the sample policies could assist smaller and more rural libraries that lack sufficient staff to develop compliant policies. However, she noted that “One of the main issues is the subjectiveness” of some requirements.
The sample policies represent one effort by APLS staff to address challenges local libraries face in complying with the administrative code changes. APLS Director Kelyn Ralya is still deciding whether to fill a newly created position intended to coordinate with local libraries regarding these compliance requirements. That decision remains pending.
