logo
Texas Legislature poised to implement sweeping restrictions on school libraries

Texas Legislature poised to implement sweeping restrictions on school libraries

Yahoo27-05-2025

Texas school boards and parents would have unprecedented control over the school library book selection process under a wide-ranging state Senate bill that the House passed 87-57 Monday, moving it one crucial step forward in its path to becoming law.
Senate Bill 13 would require school districts to pull books with 'indecent,' 'profane' or 'sexually explicit' content and grant elected board members veto power over new purchases. Any new library material, whether digital or physical, would be subject to a 30-day public review period, after which the school board would have another month before a vote.
In support of the measure, Republicans said it will prevent students from being exposed to "sexually explicit' and inappropriate books. Sen. Angela Paxton, R-McKinney, authored SB 13.
'Senate Bill 13 understands that too often and for too long, our libraries have been filled with agendas, and it's time to end that,' said Rep. Brad Buckley, R-Salado, the bill's House sponsor. 'The way to end it is to empower our local leaders and our parents to find some resolution.'
Democratic members called the bill a distraction from "real" problems that Texas children face, listing among them teacher shortages, housing instability and gun violence. They also argued the terms in the bill are unconstitutionally vague and could allow districts to strike classics like 'Lonesome Dove,' 'Catcher in the Rye' or 'Romeo and Juliet.'
'No child has ever died from a book, but many, like me, have been saved by one,' said Rep. Christina Morales, D-Houston.
The House version of SB 13 authorizes school boards to appoint parental library advisory councils, but does not require them. These councils will be tasked with singling out books that contain 'indecent content or profane content inconsistent with local community values or age appropriateness,' as per Buckley's Monday amendment.
This effort comes as a 2023 Texas law with a similar goal to SB 13 remains tied up in a First Amendment lawsuit. Under a ruling from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the state cannot enforce House Bill 900's requirement that vendors rate books for sexual content, meaning schools are not yet on the hook for removing them.
Librarians have warned SB 13 could substantially slow down the book purchasing process, creating a significant roadblock for the acquisition of new materials.
San Antonio school librarian Lucy Podmore said she was able to purchase a book on monologues for a student with a one-week turnaround this school year, making sure a student had it for a debate she was preparing for.
But 'If the bill is in place right now, we would have to wait six to eight weeks plus two more months to get that,' Podmore told the American-Statesman.
The librarian joined several dozen others to protest the bill Monday. Spread out on the floor and the steps outside of the House chamber, the group of parents, children, librarians and activists quietly read to themselves in front of a 'FREE TO READ' banner.
'I don't think this bill is about protecting children,' said Emily Kaszczuk, who participated in the "read-in" with her 6- and 9-year-old daughters from Leander. 'I think it's about control.'
If 20% of parents in a district petition for a library advisory council to be established, the school board is required to create one. SB 13 would also let any parent submit a list of titles that their children cannot check out, and access their children's borrowing histories.
Books that are challenged or under review would be removed from the shelves until probes are completed, at which time school board members would publicly vote on them.
More: Parent advisory councils could shape school library content under controversial Texas bill
Schools could use state funds to offset compliance costs under a successful amendment from Rep. Charles Cunningham, R-Humble.
Before the chamber's initial vote, Democratic members implored their colleagues to oppose the bill. Rep. Mihaela Plesa of Dallas, whose parents fled from Romania's communist regime, said SB 13 reminds her of measures used by that authoritarian government to stifle dissent.
'We do not protect liberty by silencing it, we do not strengthen education by censoring it, and we do not honor democracy by fearing diversity," she said.
For Rep. Jessica González, D-Dallas, the proposal 'will push LGBTQ kids away from the safety of school and education.'
As a concerned mother, freshman Rep. Hillary Hickland, R-Belton, said she supported the bill because she had seen what she called "filth" in library catalogs.
'Trust has been broken between parents and public schools," she said. "As a parent, we want to know that our kids are safe in the libraries."
The bill will go to a final vote Tuesday, and if it's passed, it will head back to the Senate. If the upper chamber disagrees with the changes, a conference committee will be appointed to hash out the details.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas Legislature poised to pass school library restriction bill

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ben Crump Says Donald Trump's Spending Bill is Terrible Amid Elon Musk Feud
Ben Crump Says Donald Trump's Spending Bill is Terrible Amid Elon Musk Feud

Yahoo

time36 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Ben Crump Says Donald Trump's Spending Bill is Terrible Amid Elon Musk Feud

Ben Crump's picked his side in the Elon Musk and Donald Trump beef ... but, he's not backing a personality, he says he's backing the better idea -- and, he doesn't want the "One Big Beautiful Bill" to pass through the Senate. We caught up with the civil rights activist and attorney and asked him about the fight between POTUS and his former advisor ... and, he doesn't directly say he's on Elon's side -- but, he does think this spending bill is terrible. Crump rips the bill for making cuts to Medicaid -- the medical assistance program for people with lower incomes. BC says the world needs more humanity for all people ... instead of making the life of individuals struggling financially more difficult. As you know ... Elon lost his cool about this spending bill earlier this week -- firing off shots at the president and claiming Trump only won reelection because of his efforts. President Trump called BS on that idea ... but, Elon pushed on and claimed the real reason the administration hasn't released the so-called Epstein files is because the president's name is all over them. He's since deleted the post where he wrote that ... but, today Trump warned of serious consequences if Elon decides to support Dems who are running against Republicans who vote for the bill. BTW ... we also asked Crump about Trump potentially pardoning Diddy -- and, it sounds like Crump's staying out of that one, too. Bottom line ... back the idea, not the man -- that's the Ben Crump way!

South Dakota is on track to spend $2 billion on prisons in the next decade

timean hour ago

South Dakota is on track to spend $2 billion on prisons in the next decade

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- Two years after approving a tough-on-crime sentencing law, South Dakota is scrambling to deal with the price tag for that legislation: Housing thousands of additional inmates could require up to $2 billion to build new prisons in the next decade. That's a lot of money for a state with one of the lowest populations in the U.S., but a consultant said it's needed to keep pace with an anticipated 34% surge of new inmates in the next decade as a result of South Dakota's tough criminal justice laws. And while officials are grumbling about the cost, they don't seem concerned with the laws that are driving the need even as national crime rates are dropping. 'Crime has been falling everywhere in the country, with historic drops in crime in the last year or two,' said Bob Libal, senior campaign strategist at the criminal justice nonprofit The Sentencing Project. 'It's a particularly unusual time to be investing $2 billion in prisons.' Some Democratic-led states have worked to close prisons and enact changes to lower inmate populations, but that's a tough sell in Republican-majority states such as South Dakota that believe in a tough-on-crime approach, even if that leads to more inmates. For now, state lawmakers have set aside a $600 million fund to replace the overcrowded 144-year-old South Dakota State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls, making it one of the most expensive taxpayer-funded projects in South Dakota history. But South Dakota will likely need more prisons. Phoenix-based Arrington Watkins Architects, which the state hired as a consultant, has said South Dakota will need 3,300 additional beds in coming years, bringing the cost to $2 billion. Driving up costs is the need for facilities with different security levels to accommodate the inmate population. Concerns about South Dakota's prisons first arose four years ago, when the state was flush with COVID-19 relief funds. Lawmakers wanted to replace the penitentiary, but they couldn't agree on where to put the prison and how big it should be. A task force of state lawmakers assembled by Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden is expected to decide that in a plan for prison facilities this July. Many lawmakers have questioned the proposed cost, but few have called for criminal justice changes that would make such a large prison unnecessary. 'One thing I'm trying to do as the chairman of this task force is keep us very focused on our mission,' said Lieutenant Gov. Tony Venhuizen. 'There are people who want to talk about policies in the prisons or the administration or the criminal justice system more broadly, and that would be a much larger project than the fairly narrow scope that we have.' South Dakota's incarceration rate of 370 per 100,000 people is an outlier in the Upper Midwest. Neighbors Minnesota and North Dakota have rates of under 250 per 100,000 people, according to the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice advocacy nonprofit. Nearly half of South Dakota's projected inmate population growth can be attributed to a law approved in 2023 that requires some violent offenders to serve the full-length of their sentences before parole, according to a report by Arrington Watkins. When South Dakota inmates are paroled, about 40% are ordered to return to prison, the majority of those due to technical violations such as failing a drug test or missing a meeting with a parole officer. Those returning inmates made up nearly half of prison admissions in 2024. Sioux Falls criminal justice attorney Ryan Kolbeck blamed the high number of parolees returning in part on the lack of services in prison for people with drug addictions. 'People are being sent to the penitentiary but there's no programs there for them. There's no way it's going to help them become better people,' he said. 'Essentially we're going to put them out there and house them for a little bit, leave them on parole and expect them to do well.' South Dakota also has the second-greatest disparity of Native Americans in its prisons. While Native Americans make up one-tenth of South Dakota's population, they make up 35% of those in state prisons, according to Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit public policy group. Though legislators in the state capital, Pierre, have been talking about prison overcrowding for years, they're reluctant to dial back on tough-on-crime laws. For example, it took repeated efforts over six years before South Dakota reduced a controlled substance ingestion law to a misdemeanor from a felony for the first offense, aligning with all other states. 'It was a huge, Herculean task to get ingestion to be a misdemeanor,' Kolbeck said. Former penitentiary warden Darin Young said the state needs to upgrade its prisons, but he also thinks it should spend up to $300 million on addiction and mental illness treatment. 'Until we fix the reasons why people come to prison and address that issue, the numbers are not going to stop,' he said. Without policy changes, the new prisons are sure to fill up, criminal justice experts agreed. 'We might be good for a few years, now that we've got more capacity, but in a couple years it'll be full again,' Kolbeck said. 'Under our policies, you're going to reach capacity again soon.'

What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests

timean hour ago

What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests

President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors that refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who under normal circumstances would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California, the Democratic governor said the move was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The National Guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States,' with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis – an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations.' Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, 'I'm not waiting.' Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on 'The Charlie Kirk Show,' in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized 'if violence continues.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store