School board decisions could become subject to voter referendums, bill says
A classroom at Woodrow Wilson Elementary School in South Salt Lake is pictured on Tuesday, March 12, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
Utah school boards are the only legislative bodies in Utah that are not subject to voter referendums, but a bill from Rep. Rex Shipp, R-Cedar City, could change that.
HB408 would allow voters to hold referendums — putting a question before voters to either accept or reject — on all school board decisions, including increases on taxes or new taxes, unless the action passed with a supermajority vote or is a personnel issue. The bill passed the House Tuesday in a 40-33 vote. It now heads to the Senate.
'I don't think any of us as legislators like referendums being run on our decisions up here, but I think we represent the people,' Shipp said in a committee hearing last week. 'If something rises to the concern enough that the people want to refer it, I think they need to have that opportunity, and school boards ought to be included in that.'
Shipp ran a similar bill last year but it failed in the Senate. This year, he added the exception for supermajority decisions.
In his committee presentation, Shipp mentioned a controversial split decision made by the Iron County School Board in 2019 that changed Cedar High School's mascot from the 'Redmen' to the 'Reds.'
'I think if we'd have had something like this at the time, that could have calmed the community a lot, because there was a lot of angst and concern and upset,' Shipp said.
Rep. Andrew Stoddard, D-Sandy, said he supports referendums being run on imposed taxes but worries the rest of the bill is too broad.
'I worry that what this bill does is opens up every school board decision to becoming a political decision,' he said. 'I'm sorry, your mascot changed. I'm sorry that's hard, but sometimes we have to make hard decisions.'
Rep. Doug Welton, R-Payson, and Rep. Anthony Loubet, R-Kearns, asked if school closures would be subject to referendums because it's an issue people are passionate about.
'They could force this issue onto a ballot, and that could put our school districts in a precarious position where they have now a school, but they don't have the students to fill it,' Loubet said.
During the committee hearing, Shipp told Loubet he was open to talking about an amendment on the floor, but an amendment was not discussed on Tuesday. Both Welton and Loubet voted against the bill on the House floor.
Granite School District Superintendent Ben Horsley told lawmakers during public comment that his district is currently in the process of implementing HB84, a school safety bill that went into effect at the beginning of this year, but to keep up with other costs, he is anticipating a tax increase.
'If that were then subject to a referendum … we could be in violation of several state statutes and requirements in order to implement the mandates from the state legislature,' he said. 'It's important to understand that the bulk of our policies are state requirements, and if we can't pass policies as required by those state statutes, because there's a potential split on the vote, and that becomes subject to referendum, you can see the challenges there.'
Shipp said except for supermajority decisions, all decisions could be subject to voter referendum, and maybe school boards should be careful with issues they know will be a concern to the public.
'If the people rise to a point and they don't want to wait four years, and it's a really concerning issue, maybe there ought to be a way for them to take it to a vote of the people,' he said.
Rep. Jefferson Burton, R-Salem, said the bill makes him think about who he's voting for in general elections, and though he is always concerned about any legislation that 'moves us more to a pure democracy,' he sees the value in this legislation.
'Perhaps, if this bill does go forward, it will cause school boards to think long and hard about their votes on specific subjects,' he said.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
18 minutes ago
- Axios
"Who cares": Congress' Dems say good riddance to Karine Jean-Pierre
If former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre thought she would set off a five-alarm fire among top Democrats by leaving the party, she is about to be sorely disappointed. Why it matters: Democratic lawmakers who spoke to Axios characterized her personal motives as too transparent to be a knock on the party — and they don't exactly feel like they're losing their best messenger either. "Who cares," exclaimed one House Democrat. "It's easy for paid operatives to leave the party ... until they need something." Said another: "Her explanation for this move is as confusing and disjointed as her answers in her White House press briefings." Jean-Pierre did not respond to a request for comment. Driving the news: Jean-Pierre revealed Wednesday that she is becoming an independent after serving in two Democratic presidential administrations. The announcement coincides with the release of a new book, "Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines." The book's description decries "blind loyalty to a two-party democratic system" and promises to delve into "the three weeks that led to Biden's abandoning his bid for a second term and the betrayal by the Democratic Party that led to his decision." What they're saying: "Other than Sean Spicer ... she was the worst press secretary in American history," a third House Democrat told Axios of Jean-Pierre. "There were rumors that the Biden folks were trying to get rid of her because she's so terrible," the lawmaker said, speculating that she is trying to curry favor with Republicans to avoid a congressional subpoena. "I don't know who wrote her book. We know she couldn't give a press conference without reading every word from her briefing," they added. Zoom in: Jean-Pierre has also been lit up by her former Biden White House colleagues, with one former official telling Axios' Alex Thompson she was "one of the most ineffectual and unprepared people I've ever worked with." "She had meltdowns after any interview that asked about a topic not sent over by producers," the official said. Said another: "The amount of time that was spent coddling [Jean-Pierre] and appeasing her was astronomical compared to our attention on actual matters of substance." Zoom out: The latest Bidenworld infighting comes after the release of a new book from Thompson and CNN's Jake Tapper, " Original Sin," which recounts how Biden's team shielded him from public scrutiny about his age.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China says Trump and Xi hold telephone call amid tariffs spat
US President Donald Trump has spoken by telephone with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, China's state news agency Xinhua said on Thursday. No specific details about the content of the conversation have been disclosed but it comes amid the ongoing trade spat between the two countries. The White House has yet to confirm the phone call. On Wednesday, Trump stated on his online platform Truth Social: "I like President XI of China, always have, and always will, but he is VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!" This is the first known phone call between the two presidents since Trump took office again in January. In recent months, Trump has been non-committal when asked about any potential conversations with Xi, leaving open the possibility of direct exchanges that may not have been disclosed. But typically, governments publicly announce such calls between heads of state. Since retaking office, Trump has pursued a hard-line trade policy against China, significantly escalating the long-standing dispute. The US president has imposed punitive tariffs on Chinese imports, raising them in several steps to a 145%. Beijing has responded with counter-tariffs. Although both sides agreed in mid-May to pause the escalation and temporarily lower some tariffs, tensions have recently flared again, and the underlying disagreements remain unresolved. Meanwhile, the US Senate is preparing a new sanctions package against Russia, which, according to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, is aimed at countries that continue to purchase Russian oil, gas, and other energy products. China would be particularly affected by the proposed measures, which come after Moscow failed to stop its over three-year war on Ukraine.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The fine print: 5 things that even some Republicans didn't realize were buried in Trump's 'big, beautiful' budget bill
Late last month, House Republicans passed President Trump's 'one big, beautiful bill' — a package of tax cuts, social safety net reductions and increased border and military spending meant to deliver the bulk of Trump's legislative agenda. Now, as their Senate counterparts strategize about how to maneuver the sprawling measure through Congress's upper chamber, some key Trump allies are making a surprising admission: that they regret ever supporting the president's signature legislation in the first place. 'I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there,' Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene confessed Tuesday on X. 'I am not going to hide the truth: This provision was unknown to me when I voted for that bill,' Nebraska Rep. Mike Flood told voters in his district last week. 'I do not agree with that section that was added to that bill.' 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Elon Musk, the former head of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), posted Tuesday on X. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' Why the sudden second thoughts? In part, it's because of how the 1,037-page bill was passed. The final version — filled with last-minute changes meant to placate various factions — didn't materialize until 10:40 p.m. the evening before the House's self-imposed Memorial Day deadline, leaving lawmakers just eight overnight hours to digest it. And in part it's because experts — including, on Wednesday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office — keep releasing in-depth analyses detailing how much Trump's bill will actually cost, and who it will actually affect. Here are five things buried in the bill that even some Republicans didn't realize were there — or at least aren't admitting they know about. To make their orders stick, federal judges really only have one tool at their disposal: holding anyone who defies them in contempt, then enforcing these contempt citations with fines or jail time. But House Republicans quietly inserted language into the bill stating that federal courts may not 'enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order' unless the plaintiff pays what's known as a security bond at the beginning of the case. The problem? Federal judges often waive such bonds when plaintiffs claim the government did something unconstitutional. The second Trump administration, it turns out, has been embroiled in dozens of cases concerning the constitutionality of its actions. In several — mainly involving deportations — judges are considering holding administration officials in contempt for refusing to comply with their orders. And so, if the bill passes as written, it would 'effectively shiel[d] President Trump and members of his administration from the consequences of violating court orders,' as the New York Times recently explained — in part by 'making it prohibitively expensive to sue.' Rep. Flood, for one, is not a fan. 'When I found out that provision was in the bill, I immediately reached out to my Senate counterparts and told them of my concern,' Flood told his (booing) constituents last week. 'And when I return to Washington, I am going to very clearly tell the people in my conference that we cannot support undermining our court system, and we must allow our federal courts to operate and issue injunctions.' In lieu of any sort of federal oversight, dozens of U.S. states have passed — or are actively considering — new laws regulating how artificial intelligence is used or developed. But in a concession to tech companies who claim that patchwork regulations stifle innovation, the House bill would block states from enforcing these laws — or passing new ones — for the next decade. 'No state or political subdivision may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act,' the bill reads. Apparently, Rep. Greene missed that part. 'Full transparency, I did not know about this section,' she wrote on X. 'We have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years and giving it free rein and tying states' hands is potentially dangerous. This needs to be stripped out in the Senate.' Asked why she didn't 'know about' the AI provision, Greene told the New York Times that 'it's hard to read over 1,000 pages when things keep changing up to the last minute before we voted on it.' One of the biggest cost-cutting measures in the bill is the new work requirement for low-income Americans who receive SNAP benefits (a.k.a. food stamps). This includes parents with children age 7 or older; to qualify, they would have to work 80 hours a month. But late in the process, House Republicans created a loophole specifically for married parents. According to the final bill, if a parent is 'responsible for a dependent child 7 years of age or older and is married to, and resides with, an individual who is in compliance,' then they don't have to complete the work requirement. No such exemption applies, however, to single parents. Since there's no other parent around to work those 80 hours, they would have to do it themselves (on top of parenting alone). "If you're married, then you could have one person in the couple as a stay-at-home parent, and only one person has to work," Carolyn Vega, associate director of policy at Share Our Strength, told Axios. "But if you're in any other kind of household arrangement, then everyone needs to be meeting the work requirements." As of 2022, the bulk of SNAP recipients (53%) were children in single-parent families — and 80% of single-parent households are headed by mothers, according to census data. It's unclear whether House Republicans realize their bill will effectively penalize single parents who rely on SNAP — or whether they're simply more focused on encouraging married couples to embrace stay-at-home motherhood than anything else. In recent days, Trump and his allies have claimed that the bill wouldn't cut Medicaid, the program that provides health insurance to more than 70 million low-income Americans. 'We're not doing any cutting of anything meaningful,' the president told reporters on May 20. 'The only thing we're cutting is waste, fraud and abuse. With Medicaid, waste, fraud and abuse. There's tremendous waste, fraud and abuse.' 'We are not cutting Medicaid in this package,' House Speaker Mike Johnson added on CNN. 'There's a lot of misinformation out there about this, Jake. The numbers of Americans who are affected are those that are entwined in our work to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse. So, what do I mean by that? You got more than 1.4 million illegal aliens on Medicaid.' 'No one' — presumably meaning no U.S. citizens — 'will lose coverage as a result of this bill,' agreed Russell Vought, Trump's director of the Office of Management and Budget. But Trump & Co. either don't know, or aren't admitting, that their claims aren't accurate. According to the latest nonpartisan CBO estimate, released Wednesday, the bill would actually slash federal Medicaid spending by $793 billion over the next decade, causing the number of people enrolled in the program to fall by 7.8 million. How would it do that? By forcing childless adults without disabilities to work in order to receive Medicaid benefits; by requiring states to impose new co-payments on medical services for Medicaid beneficiaries who live above the poverty line; and by making it easier for a state to cancel its residents' Medicaid coverage if they don't complete additional paperwork. As for 'illegal aliens,' 14 states currently use their own tax revenues to provide health coverage to undocumented immigrants; the bill would penalize those states by reducing their share of federal Medicaid funding. As a result, the CBO estimates that about 1.4 million more people without 'verified citizenship, nationality, or satisfactory immigration status' would be uninsured in 2034. But the CBO also projects that, overall, Trump's bill would cause the total number of uninsured U.S. residents to grow by 10.9 million over the same period — meaning the other 9.5 million would presumably be U.S. citizens. Noting this, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri has argued that the bill's Medicaid changes would harm 'working people and their children.' 'Over 20 percent of Missourians, including hundreds of thousands of children, are on Medicaid,' Hawley said on CNN last month. 'They're not on Medicaid because they want to be. They're on Medicaid because they cannot afford health insurance in the private market.' Multiple members of the Trump Administration have claimed that the bill would not add to the federal debt. 'The One Big, Beautiful Bill … helps get our fiscal house in order by carrying out the largest deficit reduction in nearly 30 years with $1.6 trillion in mandatory savings,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a news conference last month. 'The bill REDUCES deficits by $1.4 trillion over ten years,' Vought insisted Wednesday on X. 'If you care about deficits and debt, this bill dramatically improves the fiscal picture.' It can be tricky to project forward when it comes to fiscal matters, but it's worth noting that pretty much every expert disagrees with Vought and Leavitt. By extending and expanding the 2017 tax cuts, Trump's bill would add $3.8 trillion in spending over the next decade; new investments in the border and the military would pile another $400 million on top of that sum. On the other side of the ledger are spending cuts totaling $1.8 trillion, according to the CBO. That leaves a $2.4 trillion gap — otherwise known as debt. Trump's allies argue that the CBO isn't making the right 'baseline' assumptions about policy and revenue; some claim Trump's tariffs will raise trillions of dollars to offset deficits, or that tax cuts will pay for themselves by spurring economic growth. But the CBO isn't alone in its approach. According to the New York Times, 'the Budget Lab at Yale… found the Republican proposal could add $2.4 trillion to the debt by 2034. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated it would raise deficits by $2.8 trillion over a 10-year period. And the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonprofit public policy organization that supports deficit reduction, pegged the uncovered cost at $3.3 trillion over the next nine years.' 'Not sure what shoddy assumptions someone is seeing, but advocates who claim this bill will improve the fiscal situation are completely at odds with all serious outside experts who conclude it would increase borrowing by trillions,' CRFB President Maya MacGuineas told the Times. Musk, for one, seems to agree with the scorekeepers. The bill 'will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden America[n] citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt,' he wrote earlier this week on X. 'This immense level of overspending will drive America into debt slavery!' The bill would also raise America's debt ceiling from $36 trillion to $40 trillion. On Wednesday, Trump called for scrapping the debt ceiling altogether.
