Florida lawmakers pass charter school expansion on last day of session
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — On the 105th day of what was supposed to be a 60-day legislative session, Florida lawmakers passed a bill to allow charter schools to 'co-locate' inside traditional public schools. It's the latest move by the Republican-controlled Legislature to expand school choice in a state that has long been a national model for conservative education policy .
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
5 minutes ago
- CBS News
Sacramento's Cosumnes River Preserve could be impacted by U.S. sale of federal land for housing
U.S. considers selling more than 16 million acres of federal land in California for housing U.S. considers selling more than 16 million acres of federal land in California for housing U.S. considers selling more than 16 million acres of federal land in California for housing SACRAMENTO — The U.S. Senate is considering selling over 16 million acres of federal land in California to turn into housing, including in Sacramento. The plan is part of President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill," or budget reconciliation bill, which proposed putting over 250 million acres of public land in western states for sale, including land governed by the Bureau of Land Management U.S. Forest Service. The spot in Sacramento that could be impacted is the Consumnes River Preserve. "We were out there for about three hours this morning and it's a prize. It's really something worth saving," said Josh Schermerhorn, who was enjoying the Consumnes River Preserve with his wife Kathy on Tuesday. Senators who support this bill said selling federal land will generate upward of $10 billion for the government. "The thought of the sale of public lands is pretty un-American," said Katie Hawkins, California program director of the Outdoor Alliance. Hawkins said they are suspicious of the proposal because there are no safeguards in the plan that would prevent pretty much anyone from buying it. "Whether it's extraction, timber sales or if it's development for wealthy developers or even foreign interest," said Hawkins. Her other concern is whether the land is really meant to be built on. Historically, the area has seen flooding with waters spreading across nearby wetlands and rice fields. "I think flooding is natural," said kayaker Kather Schermerhorn. "This is an area that's not hurting anybody and to let it be natural." Mike Lee, a Republican Senator from Utah, has been pushing for the federal land to be sold, but not everyone in his party is on board. "It is so important that the acquisition or disposition of any of these lands be made only after significant and meaningful local input," said Republican California Rep. Kevin Kiley. Kiley openly opposed the idea on the House floor several weeks ago. The House voted against it, but the proposal is still alive on the Senate side. "We have other places where housing could be built and it doesn't have to be on a pristine, precious preserve," said Kathy. A staff member from one of the 10 organizations within the Consumnes River Preserve Partnership told CBS13 that the land is not meant to be built on and thinks solving the housing crisis should not cost Americans losing natural gems. Other California land that could be impacted includes parts of Lake Tahoe, Yosemite and Joshua Tree. Democratic U.S. Senator Alex Padilla sent CBS13 this statement about the proposal: "Make no mistake, this latest Republican proposal is riddled with anti-environment provisions meant to create the largest public land sell off in recent memory to subsidize their tax cuts for billionaires. If Republicans have their way, we will never get our public lands back once they are privatized. Our public lands and natural spaces are some of our nation's greatest gifts and I will do everything I can do to protect them." The Senate has until July 4 to decide on this bill.
Fox News
8 minutes ago
- Fox News
Mayor Johnson warns Trump against deploying federal troops for immigration crackdown in Chicago
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson voiced concerns Monday about potential federal troop deployment to his city as part of former President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown, warning the move could be unconstitutional and legally challenged. Speaking at a City Hall news conference, Johnson responded to reports of federal plans to escalate immigration enforcement in sanctuary cities like Chicago, calling the idea a threat to civil liberties and local governance. "It's just another example of his animus towards working people," Johnson said. "I think it's important that the president respects the Constitution. If you're asking me whether this president will work with city leaders, it's clear he's not interested in doing that." Johnson's remarks came in response to a statement from a Trump administration official to Rolling Stone, saying, "Chicago is next, if they go too far," in reference to recent protests and the city's sanctuary policies. "The second they do, the president is prepared to prove that nobody is above the law," the official added. The comments follow anti-ICE and anti-Trump protests in Chicago that echoed demonstrations nationwide, prompting federal officials to reportedly monitor the situation closely—especially after the Trump administration deployed National Guard forces to Los Angeles. "We will continue to resist," Johnson said. "Whether it's in the courts, in the streets, or through public policy, we're going to stand up for working people." Mary Richardson-Lowry, the city's Corporation Counsel, emphasized the legal limitations of such a deployment. "We believe it is a violation of the Constitution to deploy troops or National Guard absent authority under the Constitution," she said. Last week, Johnson called for Chicagoans to "rise up" against ICE and what he called immigration enforcement "terrorism." Chicago has received more than 51,000 migrants from the southern border since August 2022, many bussed from Texas under GOP Gov. Greg Abbott's relocation effort. The latest tensions come after Illinois Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker testified before Congress last week in defense of the state's sanctuary city policies. The mayor's office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republican Party of Texas retains law firm to bar non-members from their primaries
AUSTIN (Nexstar) — The Republican Party of Texas is looking to change the way it selects its nominees for elections across the state. Abraham George, chair of the Republican Party of Texas, said that the party's executive committee has decided to file a lawsuit to challenge the state's open primary system. 'We decided we're going to move forward with filing a lawsuit against the state, because in the 89th session, we had multiple bills that would have done this,' George said. 'So it's in our best interest, the party's best interest, for us to go to court and get that done now.' Texas currently has an open primary system, which gives voters the opportunity to vote in either primary when they show up to vote, regardless of their party affiliation. Under this system, someone who typically votes for the Republican candidate in a general election could vote in the Democratic primary, if they wish. Last year, the Texas GOP changed its bylaws to state that only Republicans can vote in a GOP primary. Under this closed system, voters must register with either the Democratic or Republican Party in order to vote in that party's primary. Some states have semi-closed primaries, where voters who do not affiliate with a party can vote in either primary. Other primary systems include top-two primaries, where the top two candidates advance to the general regardless of their party. Electioneering: Why you can't wear a political T-shirt to vote Overall, at least one party conducts an open primary in 20 states, a closed primary in 14 states and a semi-closed primary in 15 states. Three states conduct some variation of a top-two primary. George said the party wants to pursue closed primaries because it wants to prevent Democrats from being able to vote in a Republican primary and select the 'weakest' candidate, hoping to create a favorable general election matchup. He said the nominating process should belong to Republicans, and Republicans only. He cited the 2024 runoff election for former Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan, which Phelan won by 366 votes. George said that 2,500 Democrats voted in the Republican primary runoff for that election, helping Phelan, who was the more moderate candidate. There is no definitive way to know how many Democrats voted in the runoff because Texas does not have party registration. 'An average Democrat is not out there looking to pick a Republican on a given day, they are true Democrats. They're going to support a Democrat candidate,' George said. 'But when it comes to like runoff elections and contest highly contested elections, they move over.' In Texas' open primary system, one can only vote in a primary runoff for the party they chose in the first round. A Democratic primary voter can not vote in a Republican primary runoff unless they voted Republican in the first round or did not vote at all. The Texas Legislature considered multiple bills this session to change the open primary system, but none of them received a committee hearing. George called the Republicans who did not move forward with that legislation 'RINOs,' or Republicans-In-Name-Only. With the legislative route stalling, the Texas GOP is now pursuing litigation. Brian Smith, professor of political science at St. Edwards University, said that there may be risks for the GOP attempting to change the law through the legal system as opposed to by an act of the legislature. Democrats react to Trump's push for Texas redistricting 'When you try to change the electoral process through litigation rather than legislation, it's always going to raise questions, especially when one party is controlling so many of the levers of government,' Smith said. 'But that's why the Republican Party is going with this avenue. They understand that they have very favorable support throughout the state government and the court system.' Smith echoed George's point that an advantage of the closed primary system is that it prevents voters who are independents, or belong to another party from playing spoiler in close races, or from voting to get the weaker candidate. But Smith also pointed out that voters would need to register with a party ahead of time, and could not make that choice on Election Day, potentially preventing someone from voting in their party's primary if they had previously registered with a different party, or are an independent. 'This is not Dan's folly': Lt. Gov. Patrick urges media to share the dangers of THC Eric Bronner, founder and chief operating officer of Veterans for All Voters — a nonpartisan group aiming to better the political system on behalf of veterans — is opposed to creating a closed primary system in Texas, saying it would disenfranchise independents. Bronner said that, according to VAV research, a majority of post-9/11 veterans identify as independents — including the estimated one and a half million veterans in Texas. He also estimated that 61% of voters ages 18 to 24 identify as independents. Bronner said that a closed primary system would take away options for those voters. '[Veterans] don't want to be forced to join a private political party. As veterans, we swore an oath to defend the Constitution, not a political party, not party leaders, [but] the Constitution, and there is no constitutional justification for closed primary elections,' Bronner said. A closed primary system would not only exclude independents, but may prevent voters from casting a ballot in a primary for heavily partisan areas. Smith said that voters who live in a county or district which votes overwhelmingly for one party will often vote strategically in the dominant party's primary because its winner is very likely to win the general. That route would be tougher under a closed system. Smith and Bronner both said that in the end, closed primaries typically favor more ideologically extreme candidates. 'We know that closed primaries favor those people who have the most extreme values of either party,' Smith said. 'The problem is when you elect these candidates in the primary, it makes it harder for them to win in the general election if they don't have a huge partisan advantage in their district.' The lawsuit to change the state's primary system may happen soon — George said the state GOP is hoping to file in the coming weeks or months. He said that the law firm the state GOP hired has a 'good relationship' with Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, and he thinks that they can reach an agreement. Nexstar reached out to the offices of both Paxton and Phelan. Neither replied in time for this story. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
