Judge set to rule on future of controversial Oklahoma social studies standards
OKLAHOMA CITY — After nearly three hours of oral arguments Wednesday, an Oklahoma County district judge said he isn't ready to rule on a legal challenge to the state's controversial social studies standards.
District Judge Brent Dishman said he wanted to wait for a written response from the group challenging the standards after the Oklahoma Board of Education moved to dismiss the case, arguing that critics failed to point to any violation of statute, and the state agency followed the process as required by law.
Dishman has been asked to either implement an injunction to block the standards from being implemented or to dismiss the legal challenge outright.
A group of seven Oklahoma parents, grandparents and teachers represented by former Republican Attorney General Mike Hunter have sued and asked Dishman to nullify the controversial academic standards, which include language about discrepancies in the 2020 election, the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and biblical lessons.
Michael Beason, the state Department of Education's attorney, argued Wednesday that the lawsuit is a waste of taxpayer dollars as the defense 'searches for a needle in a haystack.' He said a handful of educators don't like the standards and the plaintiffs 'do not have a case recognized under Oklahoma law.'
The plaintiffs, though, argued the process used to implement the rules was flawed and the results are not 'accurate' or 'best practices' for academic standards.
The new academic standards for social studies are reviewed every six years, but state Superintendent Ryan Walters, who was not present at Wednesday's hearing, enlisted national conservative media personalities and right-wing policy advocates to aid in writing the latest version of the standards this year.
Around half of the members of the state Board of Education later said they weren't aware of last minute changes Walters made to the standards, but only one board member, Ryan Deatherage, voted against them. While lawmakers allowed the standards to take effect, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle called for them to be sent back to the board to be reconsidered.
After the hearing, Hunter said he appreciated Dishman's 'careful interest' in the arguments and that he expected a ruling by the end of June.
'Despite the arguments of the defendants, there has to be a recourse by citizens when there's a process like this that is so flawed,' he said. 'No vote by the Legislature and then an action of a state agency becomes law. If we believe the defendant's arguments today, that Oklahoma citizens have no recourse in this situation based on a strained construction of the statutes, I just don't think that's good government, and I don't think that that's a correct argument, nor do I think the judge is gonna buy it.'
James Welch, an Oklahoma teacher and plaintiff in the case, testified at Wednesday's hearing that the review process was not a true 'collaboration of experts in the field and teachers in the classroom' like he thought it would be.
Using a math analogy, the judge asked Welch, a volunteer member of the standards writing committee, if he would feel the same way about the standards and process if the subject were instead math and the standards omitted trigonometry.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Welch said he would because omitting the most up-to-date standards of learning means students don't achieve full understanding of a subject.
While the defense did not comment after the hearing, they argued that the plaintiffs could not point to a specific violation of law and simply didn't like what was in the standards.
Chad Kutmas, an attorney for the state Board of Education, said the plaintiffs 'complain about how the sausage is made, but that's just how it's made.'
'Everyone knew it was going on and the political body let it happen,' he said. 'It's inappropriate for a court to step in at this late stage.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
29 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Why Trump continues to lie about the 2020 presidential election
The right results were given in 2020. Trump lost. But nearly five years later, whenever Trump speaks, the question isn't whether he'll find a way to switch the conversation to the 2020 election but when. Given his tendency to babble about inconsequential subjects, it's tempting to dismiss Trump's off-script ramblings. But don't overlook the method behind the madness here. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up From Trump's Advertisement That's what he's doing every time he repeats the Big Lie about 2020. He upholds it as an example of a dishonest election stolen from the people despite no evidence of widespread fraud in that presidential contest. Trump lost because American voters had enough of him. Advertisement The president's motives are clear. He needs Republicans to hold on to the House in 2026 because he knows that if Democrats regain control they'll start impeachment hearings against him as soon as possible. For all his big talk about big wins in his second term, Trump knows that voters, For years, Trump undermined election integrity. As the 2016 presidential contest entered its final weeks, he falsely claimed that the election was This was Trump's hedge against a possible defeat: He could only lose an election if it was rigged against him. Of course, all of his machinations after he lost in 2020 supercharged his baseless allegations, culminating in the deadly insurrection at the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when he attempted to overthrow the outcome of the presidential election. But despite Trump's impeachment for incitement, he hasn't stopped promoting the antidemocratic lie that he was robbed and that election integrity must be restored, while he's doing everything to destroy it. That includes Trump's latest attempt to end mail-in voting by Advertisement Mail-in balloting garnered widespread use during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. According to a Trump remains unswayed. He Seven months into his Trump uses 2020 as a phony example of a crooked election. That's why he brings it up as often as possible and usually in places where he receives no pushback. But the voters he's targeting should also remember 2020 as the year when a historic number of people, despite a pandemic, cast their ballots and tossed this tyrant out of power. Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
California Republicans file suit to halt redistricting plan
California Republican legislators on Tuesday announced a state Supreme Court petition, an effort to stop Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) plan to redistrict House seats in the Golden State. 'Today I joined my colleagues in filing a lawsuit challenging the rushed redistricting process. California's Constitution requires bills to be in print for 30 days, but that safeguard was ignored. By bypassing this provision, Sacramento has effectively shut voters out of engaging in their own legislative process,' Assemblyman Tri Ta said on X. The petition cites a section of the state constitution that requires a month-long review period for new legislation. Democrats are working quickly to set up a special election that would let voters weigh in on the redistricting plan. Four state Republican legislators have signed on to the petition, according to a copy for a writ of mandate, shared by the New York Times. They're asking for immediate relief, no later than Aug. 20, and arguing that action can't be taken on the legislative package before Sep. 18. 'Last night, we filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to stop the California legislature from violating the rights of the people of California,' said Mike Columbo, a partner at Dhillon Law Group, in a Tuesday press conference alongside California Republicans. 'The California constitution clearly gives the people of California the right to see new legislation that the legislature is going to consider, and it gives them the right to review it for 30 days,' Columbo said. California Democrats swiftly introduced the redistricting legislative package when they reconvened after summer break on Monday, and are expected to vote as soon as Thursday. They have until Friday to complete the plan in time to set up a Nov. 4 special election. Columbo called that pace of action a 'flagrant violation' under the state constitution. Democrats are aiming to put a ballot measure before voters that would allow temporary redistricting, effectively bypassing the existing independent redistricting commission — which was approved by voters more than a decade ago and typically redistricts after each census — to redraw lines in direct response to GOP gerrymandering in other states. California Republicans have vowed to fight back. Democrats, on the other hand, are stressing that they're moving transparently to let voters have the final say on whether redistricting happens.
New York Post
29 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's war on mail-in voting is futile — and could hurt the GOP
President Trump is threatening to wage war on mail-in ballots — and the GOP has to hope he thinks again before the 2026 mid-terms. In a Truth Social post, Trump said he is 'going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS,' and he'll start off with 'an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 midterm elections.' Trump likes the idea of in-person, same-day voting, which has much to recommend it. Advertisement But mail-in and early voting are so ingrained and widespread that they aren't going anywhere. Most Republicans have concluded that there's no alternative to making use of these modes of voting, and crucially, they managed — most of the time — to get Trump on board in 2024. Advertisement This aided the Republican get-out-the-vote operation in a close election. Clearly, though, Trump believes that mail-in voting is a Democratic plot, and he also hates contemporary voting machines. Old-school paper ballots don't guarantee honesty, however: In an infamous instance of voter fraud, allies of Lyndon Johnson stuffed Box 13 with enough ballots to put him over the top in the very narrow 1948 Democratic Senate primary in Texas. Today's voting machines, moreover, were a reaction to the Florida fiasco in 2000, when punch-card ballots had to be painstakingly examined by hand with a presidential election at stake. Advertisement The fact is that vote-by-mail has been steadily growing since the 1980s, and it needn't favor one side or the other. In Florida, Republicans have long made it a priority to maximize mail voting. A study by the academic Andrew Hall of pre-COVID voting patterns in California, Utah and Washington found a negligible partisan effect as those states rolled out vote-by-mail systems. Advertisement Overall, turnout went up only very slightly, and 'the Democratic share of turnout did not increase appreciably.' Mail-in voting didn't change who was voting, but how they did it — encouraging, as you might expect, voting by mail rather than in-person. Vote-by-mail did have a strong partisan tilt in the COVID election of 2020, in part because Trump inveighed against it. In 2024, Republicans made a concerted effort to make up ground — and succeeded. The GOP went from 24% of the mail vote in the must-win swing state of Pennsylvania in 2020, to 33% in 2024. And Republicans outpaced Democrats in mail-in balloting in Arizona. The advantage to a party of getting people to vote early — whether in person or by mail — is that it takes high-propensity voters off the table. Then, a turnout operation can focus on getting lower-propensity voters to the polls. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters If no one votes until Election Day, party operatives waste time and money right up to the cusp of the election contacting people who are going to vote no matter what. Advertisement None of this is to say that all mail-in voting is equal. So-called universal mail-in voting, or automatically sending a ballot to every registered voter and scattering live ballots around a state, is a bad practice. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! The rules should be more stringent. Advertisement Georgia, for example, gets this right: You have to ask for an absentee ballot and provide your driver's license number or a copy of another form of valid ID. Ballots have to be requested at least 11 days before the election and must be returned by Election Day. The outer 'oath' envelope has to be properly completed or the ballot is subject to being rejected, although the county elections office will provide the voter a chance to 'cure' the envelope. Advertisement It's also important to count early and mail-in ballots quickly, something that too many states fail to do, with California — as usual — the worst offender. States should be expected to abide by whatever rules have been set prior to an election, rather than changing them on the fly, and they should ensure that voter rolls are regularly cleaned up. The real question about vote-by-mail isn't whether it is staying or going, but whether Republicans, too, will take advantage of it. Twitter: @RichLowry
