Partisan school board bill passes out of Indiana Senate, heads to Gov. Mike Braun's desk
The partisan school board bill passed the Senate by one vote and heads to Gov. Mike Braun's desk.
The Senate voted 26-24 on Thursday to give final legislative approval to Senate Bill 287, which will require school board candidates to declare a political party when running in a general election.
Bill author Sen. Gary Byrne, R-Byrneville, said Thursday school boards should be partisan because school board races see lower voter turnout because voters don't know the political party of the candidates. Further, school boards are already partisan, Byrne said.
'Like it or not, this is something that voters want to know about the candidate,' Byrne said. 'Some people who are against this bill say school boards shouldn't be partisan. I don't think this bill makes them partisan, I think that they already are partisan.'
Senate Bill 287 was amended in the House Elections and Apportionment committee to reflect House Bill 1230, authored by Rep. J.D. Prescott, R-Union City, which removed the primary election requirement and states that in the general election a school board candidate can choose to be listed as a Republican, Democrat, independent or nonpartisan.
When the bill was heard by the House, it was amended further to state that if a candidate chooses to be nonpartisan, then a blank space will appear on the ballot where party affiliation would be listed.
If the board member who leaves the board was a Republican or Democrat, then a caucus should be held to replace that member. Independent or nonpartisan candidates can be replaced by the sitting school board members, according to the bill.
Under the bill, board members would see a pay increase from $2,000 to 10% of the lowest starting salary of a teacher working in the district.
Initially, the Senate filed a motion to dissent from the House amendments to the bill, but the dissent was rescinded Tuesday and a concurrence was filed. That allowed the bill, as amended by the House, to advance for final consideration by the Senate.
A concern with the bill, Byrne said, has been that it would trigger the Hatch Act, a federal law that prevents federal employees from running in a partisan election. But, Byrne said the Hatch Act already impacts school board candidates because once a candidate includes political language on campaign literature or is endorsed by a political party then the race becomes partisan.
Further, Byrne said the House amendment allows for nonpartisan candidates to be placed on the ballot. Byrne suggested that it could help federal employees running in a school board race.
According to the Hatch Act, even if a federal employee ran as a nonpartisan candidate, if other candidates declare a party then the race becomes partisan and the federal employee couldn't run.
Sen. Eric Bassler, R-Washington, said assuming all the school board candidates run as a nonpartisan candidate then a federal employee could run in the school board race. But, once one candidate declares a party, then a federal employee couldn't run, he said.
Bassler said the legislature should want federal employees to run for school boards because they have expertise in engineering, science, finance, management and leadership.
'I would hope that we would be begging these kinds of people to run for our school boards,' Bassler said. 'This bill does a significant disservice to our young people. We should be striving to have the best people run for school board not eliminating some of the best people from running for school board.'
Sen. Liz Brown, R-Fort Wayne, asked Byrne if the Hatch Act has impacted school board races under current law, and Byrne said he hadn't heard of such an impact. Brown said the Hatch Act will have a greater impact under Senate Bill 287 because it will make all school board races partisan on the ballot.
Brown said she was concerned about the loss of talented school board members if the bill becomes law. In her district, Brown said a school board member's political beliefs aren't an issue because they 'focus on the policy and how to get our K-12 kids to where they need to be to be successful citizens of the world.'
'I can't support this bill because it unnecessarily eliminates so many candidates, so many current school board members quite frankly, that we need because of the expertise to stay on these boards,' Brown said.
Sen. Michael Young, R-Indianapolis, said 'wokeness' on school boards 'harms our kids,' and he pointed to student test scores as an example of the harm done.
'Do nonpartisan school board elections hurt us? Yeah, it does. We don't know who the best people are with the best philosophy,' Young said.
Sen. Rick Niemeyer, R-Lowell, said he voted against the bill because he didn't like that it removed the primary process.
Sen. Shelli Yoder, D-Bloomington, said after the vote that she strongly opposed the bill because it 'doesn't help a single child learn to read; it won't solve the teacher shortage; it won't fix the crumbling facilities or raise wages for our bus drivers or cafeteria workers.'
'This bill directly injects politics into one place that it absolutely does not belong, and that is in our public schools. We heard the quiet part out loud. This bill is about fear of difference, fear of diversity, fear of diversity of thought, fear of challenging the status quo,' Yoder said.
Sen. Fady Qaddoura, D-Indianapolis, said 'today is a sad day in the history of the state of Indiana' with the passage of the bill.
'Today, we placed politics above students, above parents and above our educational system,' Qaddoura said. 'It's extremely disappointing that today we decided to do what is politically expedient over what is courageously right.'
akukulka@chicagotribune.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
11 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Mexican president condemns L.A. violence, calls on Mexicans to act peacefully
MEXICO CITY — As images of chaos in Los Angeles dominated Mexican media, President Claudia Sheinbaum condemned the weekend clashes but refrained from any direct denunciation of Washington's hard-line immigration tactics — while urging Mexican citizens in California to eschew violence. Sheinbaum, who has won widespread acclaim for her deft handling of incendiary pronouncements by President Trump on tariffs, drug smuggling and other issues, again sought to walk a fine line: She called on U.S. authorities to 'respect the human dignity' of 'hard-working' and 'honest' Mexican immigrants, while denouncing unlawful acts. 'Burning patrol cars seems more like an act of provocation than one of resistance,' Sheinbaum said Monday. A day earlier, the president had been more pointed in her critique of U.S. immigration roundups, which have drawn widespread outrage here. 'The immigration phenomenon cannot be dealt with through violence or raids,' Sheinbaum told a crowd Sunday at a hospital ribbon-cutting outside the capital. News reports and social media accounts in Mexico have widely circulated images of U.S. agents in tactical gear facing off against protesters baring Mexican flags. 'We call on the government of the United States to avoid any act of repression and rectify its unjust and arbitrary policy against millions of immigrants,' Gerardo Fernández Noroña, president of the Mexican Senate and a member of Sheinbaum's ruling Morena bloc, told reporters. On the streets in Mexico City, many Mexicans focused not on the protests, but recent raids by immigration agents in Southern California. They assailed what they viewed as unwarranted attacks against compatriots and relatives. 'I have some cousins living in California and they're very worried and frightened about the raids,' said Alejandra Morales, 47, who works in a rehab clinic in the capital. 'They are good people who only seek a better life for their kids. Trump may ruin their lives.' Said Sofía González, 32, a veterinarian: 'I think President Sheinbaum should be very forceful in her protests against Trump. We've had enough of Trump doing crazy things and maltreating Mexicans.' In her comments, Sheinbaum expressed appreciation to Los Angeles for having provided a home for generations of Mexican immigrants and their families. Mexican citizens are the largest immigrant group in the United States, numbering more than 11 million, according to various estimates. Mexican-born immigrants are widely dispersed across the country, though Los Angeles is still seen here as the capital of the Mexican disapora. Los Angeles 'has been generous, and we Mexicans have been generous with this city,' Sheinbaum said. According to the Mexican foreign ministry, 42 Mexican citizens were arrested in the recent raids, 37 men and 5 women. Four had previous removal orders and have already been expelled back to Mexico; two others agreed to return to Mexico voluntarily. Ronald Johnson, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico City, defended the Trump administration crackdown, while also praising Mexico and its people. 'The violent protesters in LA don't represent the Mexican people: dignified and hard-working, that we know and respect,' Johnson wrote in Spanish on X. 'Our actions protect every community and reinforce the rule of law. Mexico is our partner and our nations are profoundly united.' Sheinbaum's reaction to the clashes in Los Angeles is in line with her efforts to avoid disputes with the Trump administration. Her motto has been: 'cooperation, not subjugation.' The president has criticized Trump's mass deportation agenda, but said that Mexico welcomes its deported citizens. To date, Mexican authorities say, deportations from the United States to Mexico have not spiked, despite the Trump administration policies. In recent years, the United States has removed about 200,000 Mexican citizens back to Mexico each year. Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed.
The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jeffries says Trump ‘intentionally' inflaming unrest in Los Angeles
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is hammering President Trump over the clashes in Los Angeles, saying the president is purposefully escalating tensions to distract the country from a volatile economy. Speaking to reporters in the Capitol, Jeffries railed against Trump's aggressive deportation policies and defended the rights of Americans to protest such government actions — if it's done peacefully. He accused Trump of 'fanning flames and inciting things on the ground' to distract from a domestic policy agenda that Jeffries has dubbed 'a failure.' 'Donald Trump is clearly trying to distract from the fact that he has a failed administration,' Jeffries said. The Democratic leader also dismissed Trump's argument that, by intervening in the L.A. immigration protests, he's simply bringing law and order to a city where local officials have failed to do so. Jeffries noted that Trump, for hours, had declined to intervene on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters attacked law enforcers at the U.S. Capitol in an effort to block the certification of Trump's election defeat a few months earlier. In January, Trump pardoned roughly 1,500 of the rioters — a move that, according to Jeffries, gives Trump and his supporters 'zero credibility' to claim the mantle of law and order. 'Donald Trump wasn't a leader on Jan. 6. He didn't send the National Guard to stop the violent mob that was brutally beating police officers in plain view for every single American to see,' Jeffries said. 'And this guy, who likely withheld the National Guard — he certainly didn't send them forward — is lecturing the country about law and order?' 'Give me a break. We're not feeling you — particularly as it relates to this issue,' he continued. 'Donald Trump and all of these minions who support him — the sycophants, the extremists — have zero credibility on this issue. Republicans have become the party of lawlessness and disorder.' Amid the unrest in L.A., Trump over the weekend activated members of the National Guard, drawing criticisms from California officials — notably Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) — who said local law enforcement agencies are sufficiently equipped to handle the situation without the involvement of federal troops. Newsom announced Monday that he is suing the administration over the federal intervention. 'This is a manufactured crisis,' Newsom posted on X. 'He is creating fear and terror to take over a state militia and violate the U.S. constitution.' Jeffries is standing squarely behind Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass (D), a former member of the House, who have both argued that local and state law enforcers in California have the faculties and manpower to protect both First Amendment rights and public safety. 'The LAPD, the L.A. Sheriff's Department, other local law enforcement, and the California Highway Patrol, seem to have the capacity to make sure that the situation is addressed — that peaceful protests are allowed to occur, and that law-breakers are held accountable,' Jeffries said.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge denies Michael Madigan's motion for new trial, setting stage for high-stakes sentencing Friday
A federal judge on Monday denied a motion by former House Speaker Michael Madigan seeking to overturn his recent conviction on bribery and other corruption counts, setting the stage for a high-stakes sentencing hearing later this week. Madigan, 83, was back in the federal courtroom for the first time since a jury convicted him nearly four months ago. But unlike his marathon trial, Monday's hearing was brief. After both sides waived oral arguments on the defense motion, U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey announced he was denying it, though his ruling, which he said is more than 100 pages long, won't be made public for some time. Madigan sat through the 15-minute hearing without comment and walked out carrying an umbrella. Blakey is holding another hearing Tuesday to go over issues on the sentencing guidelines in Madigan's case, which hinge partly on how much money ComEd stood to gain because of legislation the speaker helped usher through the legislative process. Madigan's attorneys are also asking Blakey to strike language from a prosecution filing last Friday revealing for the first time publicly that Madigan 'has amassed a personal fortune of more than $40 million' — a disclosure reported by the Tribune over the weekend. The defense wrote in a motion filed ahead of Monday's hearing that Madigan served the public as a legislator and lawyer for more than 60 years and 'chose frugality over extravagance, remaining in the same modest home for more than fifty years while making prudent savings and investment choices.' 'The government offers zero evidence—absolutely nothing—to justify broadcasting specific details about his net worth,' the motion stated. 'The government's decision to splash his personal financial information across a public filing represents a gross breach of the rules.' Blakey said he'd take up the issue on Tuesday. Madigan's sentencing, set for Friday afternoon, is one of the most highly anticipated hearings in years at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse. Prosecutors have asked for a hefty 12 1/2 year prison term and $1.5 million fine, while the defense is seeking probation along with a period of home confinement. Madigan's defense team filed a motion in March arguing for a new trial in his corruption case, saying prosecutors failed to prove the then-powerful Democrat knew about a scheme by ComEd to pay off his associates and alleging Blakey made a series of mistakes in his evidentiary rulings. The 73-page motion alleged those errors tainted the jury with highly prejudicial evidence, and asked Blakey to reverse the jury's verdict on certain guilty counts and grant a new trial on others. Among the missteps that Madigan's legal team says warrants a new trial: letting in a now-infamous FBI wiretap where Madigan tells his longtime confidant, Michael McClain, that some ComEd contractors 'made out like bandits' for little work; allowing the jury to hear prejudicial testimony about sexual harassment allegations; and including a recorded phone call between McClain and the speaker's son, Andrew Madigan, about another public utility, Peoples Gas, being forced to make political hires. The defense filing also argued that despite the jury's guilty verdict, prosecutors failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Madigan knew about any scheme to enrich his friends or that there was a 'this-for-that' agreement to help shepherd ComEd's legislation in Springfield. 'Michael Madigan is not corrupt. He never exchanged his duty to serve his constituents for private benefit — the essence of corruption,' the filing stated. 'For decades, Madigan sought to ensure ComEd did not get away with ripping off consumers in Illinois. Madigan's primary purpose was to work hard for his community and the Democratic party.' Such post-trial motions are routine and rarely granted. But the filing provides a blueprint for a likely appeal to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Madigan's trial capped one of the most significant political corruption investigations in Chicago's checkered history. It also cemented an extraordinary personal fall for Madigan, the longest-serving state legislative leader in the nation's history who for decades held an iron-tight grip on the House as well as the state Democratic Party. After 11 days of deliberation, the jury's final verdict was mixed. Madigan was convicted of 10 of 23 counts, including marquee allegations that he agreed to squeeze lucrative, do-nothing contracts from ComEd for pals such as former Alds. Frank Olivo and Michael Zalewski and precinct captains Ray Nice and Edward Moody, all while the utility won a series of major legislation victories. Madigan was also convicted on six out of seven counts — including wire fraud and Travel Act violations — regarding a plan to get ex-Ald. Daniel Solis, a key FBI mole who testified at length in the trial, appointed to a state board. Jurors deadlocked on all six counts related to Madigan's co-defendant McClain. jmeisner@
