Asian American history poised to be added to Maine learning results
(Photo by Getty Images)
Both chambers of the Maine Legislature passed a bill that would require Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander history to be taught in Maine schools.
The Senate on Thursday passed LD 957 with a 19-13 vote, after the House did so one day prior without a roll call.
The bill would require the Maine Department of Education to convene a volunteer advisory committee to collect information and prepare materials to teach this history. It would also require the department to develop a process to enable schools to conduct internal audits of their curriculum to ensure the history is being adequately and accurately taught.
Though, with a one-time cost of $15,000 for the department to convene the advisory group and prepare teaching materials, the legislation is expected to be placed on the appropriations table.
Bills that land on this table, which is managed by the Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee that sets the budget, have already passed the full Legislature with initial votes. However, if they don't have a specific funding source, they have to vie for remaining unappropriated money.
Essentially, that's everything being voted through with a fiscal note because lawmakers are still drafting what will be in the next two year budget plan.
This bill is one of several being considered this session to ensure diverse histories are taught in Maine schools, though the other bills seek to make sure already required curricula are actually being taught.
Lawmakers revisit bills to ensure diverse histories are taught in Maine schools
Maine has required Wabanaki and African American studies to be taught in schools since 2001 and 2021, respectively.
But, school districts have failed to consistently and appropriately include Wabanaki studies in their curricula, according to a 2022 report, and many caution African American studies could see the same fate without additional resources and accountability measures.
Last year, two separate bills were combined into one that proposed establishing a commission on Wabanaki and African American studies but that legislation died without final action. This idea is back for consideration this session with distinct bills.
LD 1474, sponsored by Rep. Laurie Osher (D-Orono), would permanently establish a Wabanaki studies specialist in the Maine Department of Education to ensure the standards are being met.
LD 1202, sponsored by Talbot Ross, would create the African American Studies Advisory Council to serve as a resource for educators, schools and the Department of Education to ensure the implementation of the curricula in accordance with existing state law.
Neither bills have received floor votes so far.
Another bill, LD 339, that sought to pilot a Wabanaki-centered curriculum for Wabanaki children attending public schools has been rejected by both chambers and is now effectively dead.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal panel rules in favor of state in Arkansas congressional redistricting lawsuit
(Getty Images) A three-judge federal court panel on Friday dismissed with prejudice a case challenging Arkansas' congressional district map. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas by a group of voters and the Christian Ministerial Alliance. It claimed boundaries for Arkansas' 2nd Congressional District were racially gerrymandered and diluted the votes of Black Arkansans. Congressional and state legislative districts are redrawn after the U.S. Census each decade in a process known as redistricting. The goal is to create districts that contain roughly the same population. The Ministerial Alliance's lawsuit was one of four filed to challenge Arkansas' 2021 redistricting process and the only one that hadn't been dismissed. On Friday, U.S. Circuit Judge David Stras, U.S. District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. and U.S. District Judge James Moody Jr. granted the state's motion for summary judgment, saying there was not enough evidence to support the plaintiffs' racial discrimination claims. 'Multiple Arkansas citizens challenge how the General Assembly redrew the state's congressional district lines,' Friday's order states. 'Although their allegations were plausible enough to survive a motion to dismiss [Docs. 35, 42], the evidence does not back up their claims of racial discrimination. For that reason, we grant summary judgment to Secretary of State John Thurston.' Thurston, who was secretary of state when the lawsuit was filed in 2023, was elected state treasurer in 2024 during a special election. The governor appointed Cole Jester to succeed Thurston. Previously, the entirety of Pulaski County was included in Arkansas' Second Congressional District, which is represented by Republican U.S. Rep. French Hill. During the 2021 redistricting process, Pulaski County was split between three congressional districts. Plaintiffs alleged the General Assembly considered racial data when redrawing district lines and unconstitutionally 'cracked' the Black voting bloc in southeast Pulaski County. The state's attorneys submitted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the state last October. According to Friday's order, the original complaint alleged two constitutional claims — one for racial gerrymandering under the Fourteenth Amendment and one for vote dilution under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The federal panel said race needed to be 'the predominant factor' motivating the General Assembly's decision and that awareness or acceptance of a 'racially disparate impact is not enough.' Three-judge panel hears arguments but doesn't rule in Arkansas redistricting lawsuit Creating 'an alternative map' is one way to prove redrawn boundaries were racially motivated, the panel said. However, that only works if the alternative map still accomplishes the Legislature's partisan goals. 'If it does not, then it just highlights how the pursuit of a nonracial aim — like retention, partisanship, or geography — could have led to an unintended racial disparity,' the panel wrote. 'All three of the plaintiffs' alternatives fall short in exactly this way.' Citing a U.S. Supreme Court reversal of a decision by a three-judge panel that found South Carolina had discriminated against Black voters in a 2023 redistricting lawsuit, Stras and his counterparts noted the high court emphasized that the courts must 'start with the presumption that the legislature acted in good faith.' 'Absent direct evidence of racial discrimination and with only weak circumstantial evidence supporting the plaintiffs' case, the presumption of legislative good faith tips the balance,' Stras wrote. That coupled with the fact that no alternative map achieves the General Assembly's goals with 'significantly greater racial balance,' meant the judges could not reasonably find that the plaintiffs had proved enough for their claim of racial gerrymandering to survive summary judgment, according to the ruling. The primary obstacle of the presumption of good faith holds true for the plaintiffs' vote-dilution claim, according to Friday's order. While the vote-dilution claim requires race to be a 'motivating factor' instead of the predominant one, the panel argued 'the plaintiffs do not have enough evidence to get there.' 'Most of what the plaintiffs offer are the materials we have already discussed: maps, statistics, and legislative history, none of which are enough to infer a racial motivation,' the panel wrote. The federal judges acknowledged as evidence a report from a university doctoral candidate that describes Arkansas' 'long history' with racism and resistance to Black voters, but wrote that much of that predates the passage of the 1964 Voting Rights Act. 'Even if he identifies a few scattered examples since then, none are 'reasonably contemporaneous with the challenged decision,' giving us little insight into what the General Assembly may have been thinking four years ago,' the panel wrote. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Vox
25 minutes ago
- Vox
The big reason why Republicans should worry about an angry Elon Musk
In the November 2026 midterm elections, Elon Musk could have much more impact for much less money. Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images How the Musk-Trump blowup ends, nobody knows. Most commentary gives President Donald Trump the advantage. But Elon Musk's willingness to spend his fortune on elections gives him one distinct advantage — the ability to drive a brittle party system into chaos and loosen Trump's hold on it. Thus far, Musk has raised two electoral threats. First, his opposition to Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill has raised the specter of his funding primary challenges against Republicans who vote to support the legislation. Second, he has raised the possibility of starting a new political party. There are limits to how much Musk can actually reshape the political landscape — but the underlying conditions of our politics make it uniquely vulnerable to disruption. The threat of Musk-funded primaries might ring a little hollow. Trump will almost certainly still be beloved by core Republican voters in 2026. Musk can fund primary challengers, but in a low-information, low-turnout environment of mostly Trump-loving loyal partisans, he is unlikely to succeed. However, in the November 2026 midterm elections, Musk could have much more impact for much less money. All he needs to do is fund a few spoiler third-party candidates in a few key swing states and districts. In so doing, he would exploit the vulnerability that has been hiding in plain sight for a while — the wafer-thin closeness of national elections. The Logoff The email you need to stay informed about Trump — without letting the news take over your life, from senior editor Patrick Reis. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. In a straight-up battle for the soul of the Republican Party, Trump wins hands down. Not even close. Trump has been the party's leader and cult of personality for a decade. But in a battle for the balance of power, Musk might hold the cards. Currently, the US political system is 'calcified.' That's how the political scientists John Sides, Chris Tausanovitch, and Lynn Vavreck described it in their 2022 book, The Bitter End: The 2020 Presidential Campaign and the Challenge to American Democracy. Partisans keep voting for their side, seeing only the reality that makes them the heroes; events may change, but minds don't. In a 48-48 country, that means little opportunity for either party to make big gains. It also means a small disruption could have massive implications. Elon Musk doesn't have a winning coalition — but he may not need one to hurt Trump Let's imagine, for a moment, that Musk is serious about starting a new political party and running candidates. He will quickly find that despite his X poll, a party that 'actually represents the 80 percent in the middle' is a fantasy. That mythical center? Being generous here, that's maybe 15 percent of politically checked-out Americans. Realistically, the coalition for Musk's politics — techno-libertarian-futurist, anti-system, very online, Axe-level bro-vibes — would be small. But even so, a Musk-powered independent party — call it the 'Colonize Mars' Party — would almost certainly attract exactly the voters completely disenchanted with both parties, mostly the disillusioned young men who went to Trump in the 2024 election. Imagine Musk funds his Colonize Mars Party in every competitive race, recruiting energetic candidates. He gives disenchanted voters a chance to flip off the system: Vote for us, and you can throw the entire Washington establishment into a panic! Practically, not many seats in the midterms will be up for grabs. Realistically, about 40 or so House seats will be genuine swing seats. In the Senate, there are realistically only about seven competitive races. But that means a small party of disruption could multiply the targeted impact of a precision blast with a well-chosen 5 percent of the electorate in less than 10 percent of the seats. Quite a payoff. The short-term effect would be to help Democrats. Musk used to be a Democrat, so this is not so strange. If Musk and his tech allies care about immigration, trade, and investment in domestic science, supporting Democrats may make more sense. And if Musk mostly cares about disruption and sending Trump spiraling, this is how he would do it. Musk is an engineer at heart. His successes have emerged from him examining existing systems, finding their weak points, and asking, What if we do something totally different? From an engineer's perspective, the American political system has a unique vulnerability. Every election hangs on a narrow margin. The balance of power is tenuous. Since 1992, we've been in an extended period in which partisan control of the White House, Senate, and the House has continually oscillated between parties. National electoral margins remain wickedly tight (we haven't had a landslide national election since 1984). And as elections come to depend on fewer and fewer swing states and districts, a targeted strike on these pivotal elections could completely upend the system. A perfectly balanced and completely unstable system It's a system ripe for disruption. So why has nobody disrupted it? First, it takes money — and Musk has a lot of it. Money has its limits — Musk's claim that his money helped Trump win the election is dubious. Our elections are already saturated with money. In an era of high partisan loyalty, the vast majority of voters have made up their minds before the candidate is even announced. Most money is wasted. It hits decreasing marginal returns fast. The very thing that makes our politics feel so stuck is exactly what makes it so susceptible to Musk's threat. But where money can make a difference is in reaching angry voters disenchanted with both parties with a protest option. Money buys awareness more than anything else. For $300 million (roughly what Musk spent in 2024), a billionaire could have leverage in some close elections. For $3 billion (about 1 percent of Musk's fortune) the chance of success goes up considerably. Second, disruption is possible when there are enough voters who are indifferent to the final outcome. The reason Ross Perot did so well in 1992? Enough voters saw no difference between the parties that they felt fine casting a protest vote. Election after election, we've gone through the same pattern. Throw out the old bums, bring in the new bums — even if 90-plus percent of the electorate votes for the same bums, year in and year out. But in a 48-48 country, with only a few competitive states and districts, a rounding-error shift of 10,000 votes across a few states (far fewer than a typical Taylor Swift concert) can bestow full control of the government. Think of elections as anti-incumbent roulette. The system is indeed 'calcified,' as Sides, Tausanovitch, and Vavreck convincingly argue. Calcified can mean immovable. But it can also mean brittle. Indeed, the very thing that makes our politics feel so stuck is exactly what makes it so susceptible to Musk's threat.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Florida attorney general steps into Scientology land debate
Residents, city council members and the Church of Scientology have been locked in a tug-of-war over a portion of roadway in downtown Clearwater ever since city leaders voted in March to tentatively approve selling the land to the church. The church withdrew its request to purchase the city-owned street in May after a group offered a counter proposal that would memorialize African American history. What seemed like a hyper-local debate over the future of Scientology's downtown footprint has now caught the attention of Florida's attorney general. James Uthmeier sent a letter to Clearwater Mayor Bruce Rector last month about the sale of a portion of South Garden Avenue. Despite never using the word 'Scientology' in his letter, he wrote that comments Rector made during a recent city council work session suggest an 'unconstitutional' position against the church. 'My role as the state's chief legal officer compels me to caution you in this instance because it appears discriminatory motives could taint the Council's decision making,' Uthmeier's letter stated. 'If discrimination forms a basis for any decision to reject or place restrictions on approval, such a decision would run afoul of Florida law.' He wrote that his office had learned the city may agree to vacate the land on the condition that the Church develops its other downtown properties, a condition that he claimed violates a 1978 attorney general opinion. Companies tied to the Church of Scientology have purchased at least 200 properties within Clearwater's downtown since 2017. Residents and city council members opposed to the church purchasing more land say Scientology's properties are empty storefronts that have stunted downtown's growth. Rector, Clearwater's mayor, said the facts in the attorney general's letter were incorrect. He learned from Uthmeier's office that a letter was coming, he said, but didn't know exactly what it would say. This week, Rector said he spoke with Uthmeier's office to explain the situation and correct assumptions. 'We're not adversaries in this,' Rector said. 'It's a local issue. They're not going to get involved in a local issue, but they did receive a complaint.' Rector doesn't know who sent the complaint, although he has an idea, he said. The attorney general's office didn't respond immediately to requests for comment. Danaya Wright, a constitutional law professor at the University of Florida, said the city council has to make decisions that are in the best interest of its community — selling publicly owned land to a private entity is hard to get back, so doing so needs to be done carefully. 'I don't think the (city) has an obligation to bend over backwards to give them publicly owned land,' Wright said, 'as long as they're not privileging one religion over another, or discriminating against one religion over another, which is not the case.' The city council has to assess how this entity has used the other property it owns and what the taxpayer benefits are, she said. 'If it has made promises about development and then not done so, then that's relevant information,' Wright said. Brooks Gibbs, a part of the Save the Garden Coalition, which is proposing a plan that will memorialize African-American history in Clearwater, published a statement in response to the attorney general's letter. 'We intend to meet with city officials to discuss the next steps in bringing The Garden Memorial to life through a public-private partnership, while keeping the street in full use for Clearwater's citizens,' Gibbs wrote. 'We are continuing to move forward with determination.' Rector said Uthmeier's office is not taking any action. And right now, the city isn't looking to do so either. 'It's an active street,' Rector said. 'I don't think there's any appetite from the city council right now to vacate the street for anyone.'
