West Virginia school board will pursue lawsuit after lawmakers get authority over education rules
The West Virginia Capitol in Charleston, W.Va. (Perry Bennett | West Virginia Legislative Photography)
The West Virginia Board of Education will pursue litigation over a recently-passed bill that gives lawmakers the ultimate authority over school board policies.
The Republican-backed measure was designed to trigger litigation for a likely review by the state Supreme Court that will favor lawmakers' side.
The Legislature signed off on the bill earlier this year despite a clear voter rejection of a similar proposal three years ago. It became law last month without the governor's signature.
'I move that the board pursue litigation to contest the constitutionality of House Bill 2755 regarding the board's independent policy making authority,' said State School Board President Nancy White, who announced the legal challenge Wednesday at the board's monthly meeting in Charleston.
No other comments were made by board members about the litigation.
Bill sponsor Del. Mike Hornby, a Republican from Berkeley County, said he expected a legal challenge to the bill. He believes lawmakers have constitutional authority to intervene in education and noted the state's near-bottom ranking in academic outcomes.
'I hope we will come out with the right decision here, and I look forward to the results,' he said.
The bill requires that all legislative rules enacted by the state board must first be authorized by the Legislative Oversight Commission on Education Accountability, a lawmaker committee known as LOCEA. The proposed rules would then be submitted to the full Legislature for review.
'I think the point of the bill is to work with the Department of Education,' Hornby said. 'A lot of people keep saying we want control — it's not the intent.'
In 2022, West Virginia voters rejected a constitutional amendment that would have given the Legislature authority to review and approve the state board of education's rules and policies.
Fifty-eight percent of voters were against it.
Opponents of this year's legislation consistently argued that it was ignoring West Virginians' decision on the matter and injecting politics into classrooms.
Hornby also said he sponsored the bill because he wanted the West Virginia Supreme Court to revisit the issue.
The state school board has independent authority to oversee schools. The state Supreme Court upheld this in 1988 in West Virginia Board of Education vs. Hechler, determining that the state Board of Education has the 'general supervision' of schools under the Constitution. Any statutory provision that interferes with authority and rule-making is unconstitutional, the opinion read.
'A lot of people think that decision was wrong,' Hornby said. 'That's why I figured we'd do this, and that's why we got a lot of sponsors.'
Ten other House Republicans sponsored the measure, including House Education Committee Chairman Joe Ellington, R-Mercer.
During bill debate, Democratic lawmakers predicted that the bill would likely result in a lawsuit. They argued — like the state school board — that the measure wasn't constitutional since the state Supreme Court had already ruled on the matter and the proposed amendment was defeated by voters three years ago.
Hornby said money spent on the case would be 'well spent' if it fixes the education system.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump just made healthcare more dangerous for pregnant women | Opinion
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially." Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Former Rep. David Jolly announces bid for Florida governor
TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) — Former Rep. David Jolly announced Thursday that he is entering the Florida governor's race. Jolly previously represented Florida District 13 from 2014 to 2017 as a Republican. However, in the governor's race, Jolly will run as a Democratic candidate. 'Let's end the politics of division and return Florida to voters who simply want an economy that works, the best education system in the world, safe communities, and a government that stays out of their doctors' offices and family decisions,' Jolly said in a news release. 'This is a different type of issues-driven, results-focused campaign, and it will be driven not by anger and division but by optimism and solutions,' Jolly said. 'We are building a new coalition of Floridians who deeply care about their state and are desperate for real answers to real problems that are putting our quality of life at risk.' Jolly is the first Democrat to enter the Florida governor's race. U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds, Surfside Mayor Charles Burkett and State Sen. Jason Pizzo have already thrown their hats into the race. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
