logo
Alaska Legislature votes to uphold governor's veto of significant education funding boost

Alaska Legislature votes to uphold governor's veto of significant education funding boost

Yahoo23-04-2025

Rep. Maxine Dibert, D-Fairbanks, speaks in favor of the override of House Bill 69 on Tuesday, April 22, 2025. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
The Alaska Legislature has voted to uphold Gov. Mike Dunleavy's veto of a bill that would have significantly increased the funding formula for Alaska's K-12 public schools.
Jesse Bjorkman, R-Nikiski
Matt Claman, D-Anchorage
Forrest Dunbar, D-Anchorage
Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage
Elvi Gray-Jackson, D-Anchorage
Scott Kawasaki, D-Fairbanks
Jesse Kiehl, D-Juneau
Kelly Merrick, R-Eagle River
Donny Olson, D-Golovin
Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak
Löki Tobin, D-Anchorage
Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage
Mike Cronk, R-Tok
Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel
Shelley Hughes, R-Palmer
James Kaufman, R-Anchorage
Robert Myers, R-North Pole
Mike Shower, R-Wasilla
Bert Stedman, R-Sitka
Robert Yundt, R-Wasilla
Dunleavy vetoed House Bill 69 last week, citing cost concerns and the lack of policy measures he endorsed. With the House and Senate meeting in joint session, the vote to override Dunleavy was 33-27, sustaining the veto. Forty of the Legislature's 60 members were needed for an override.
In its final version, HB 69 would have increased the state's base student allocation, core of the K-12 funding formula, by $1,000 per student. That would have resulted in $253 million more per year for public schools, if fully funded.
Last year, the Legislature voted overwhelmingly in favor of a smaller, $174 million formula increase. Dunleavy vetoed that bill as well. Lawmakers then failed by a single vote to override the governor's decision.
Unlike in 2024, when education supporters packed the Capitol to urge an override, there was no major protest accompanying the override vote. A single pro-override sign-waver stood outside the Capitol for about 30 minutes during lunchtime, then departed amid a light drizzle.
As the joint session got underway, Sen. Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel and co-chair of the Senate Finance Committee, spoke first.
'It is with great reluctance that I stand here today to support the governor's veto,' he said. 'As everyone is well aware we have a major budget deficit. Not only in the current year that we are in, some $150 million, but we also have a substantial amount for the coming fiscal year.'
Hoffman said that while he supports a $1,000 BSA increase, lawmakers must address raising new revenues first. The Senate is currently considering revenue measures, including changes to the state's oil tax and corporate taxes.
Hoffman said revenue measures could make a $1,000 BSA increase affordable.
'If we truly say that education is our No. 1 priority, we should stand behind it fiscally,' he said.
Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage, spoke in support of overriding the veto to provide much-needed school funding.
Robyn Niayuq Burke, D-Utqiagvik
Ashley Carrick, D-Fairbanks
Maxine Dibert, D-Fairbanks
Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham
Ted Eischeid, D-Anchorage
Zack Fields, D-Anchorage
Neal Foster, D-Nome
Alyse Galvin, I-Anchorage
Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage
Carolyn Hall, D-Anchorage
Sara Hannan, D-Juneau
Rebecca Himschoot, I-Sitka
Ky Holland, I-Anchorage
Nellie Unangiq Jimmie, D-Toksook Bay
Andy Josephson, D-Anchorage
Chuck Kopp, R-Anchorage
Donna Mears, D-Anchorage
Genevieve Mina, D-Anchorage
Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage
Andi Story, D-Juneau
Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak
Jamie Allard, R-Eagle River
Jeremy Bynum, R-Ketchikan
Mia Costello, R-Anchorage
Julie Coulombe, R-Anchorage
Bill Elam, R-Nikiski
DeLena Johnson, R-Palmer
Kevin McCabe, R-Big Lake
Elexie Moore, R-Wasilla
David Nelson, R-Anchorage
Mike Prax, R-North Pole
George Rauscher, R-Sutton
Justin Ruffridge, R-Soldotna
Dan Saddler, R-Eagle River
Rebecca Schwanke, R-Glennallen
Will Stapp, R-Fairbanks
Cathy Tilton, R-Wasilla
Frank Tomaszewski, R-Fairbanks
Jubilee Underwood, R-Wasilla
Sarah Vance, R-Homer
'Year after year of flat funding is resulting in harm to our children. We are punishing them for the mistakes that we as a Legislature have made, and it is not fair,' he said.
Many lawmakers spoke of school districts facing severe budget deficits, staff and program cuts, and school closures.
'The consequences of underfunding are being felt deeply. A meaningful increase to the BSA would help prevent the devastating cuts our districts are now being forced to make,' said Sen. Elvi Gray-Jackson, D-Anchorage, who supported the veto override. 'Funding public education is not a game.'
Other lawmakers objected to the lack of education policy reforms in the bill, as Dunleavy pressed for during a news conference announcing the veto on Thursday.
'I'm objecting to forcing people to contribute more without any discussion of performance measures,' said Rep. Mike Prax, R-North Pole, who voted to sustain the veto.
Rep. Nellie Jimmie, D-Toksook Bay, spoke in support of overriding the veto, protecting the Permanent Fund dividend, and raising new state revenue.
'This bill is expensive, and it still isn't enough. With the frozen funding and grants running dry, the future is uncertain, but we can't build our future on deficit spending either,' she said. 'We can't take the PFD, which is often a matter of life and death in rural Alaska. When our savings run out of money, Alaska, lights go dark. It is time to stop hoping for high oil prices or more visitors on cruise ships who will save us. We are out of options. It is time to ask without fear, how will we pay for this? And it's time to clearly say, we need to raise new revenues, and we shouldn't be scared of that.'
During his speech against the override, Hoffman said that the state's Constitutional Budget Reserve — the largest remaining state savings account — was not intended to pay for recurring expenses.
Rep. Andy Josephson, D-Anchorage and co-chair of the House Finance Committee, argued against Hoffman's statement a few minutes later.
'There's been esteemed members of the Legislature who've noted that this is an affordability question, and I don't agree with that,' he said.
The House's version of the operating budget — including a $1,000 BSA increase — has a deficit of $67 million, Josephson said. In contrast, the CBR has a balance of $2.8 billion.
'That's 2.4%. So I can't go to my constituents and say, this is just unaffordable. Because it's not. It's just a question of will, that's all,' Josephson said, arguing that savings can be used to pay for education.
The deficit in the House's draft budget may be larger than Josephson stated, because it contains a cut whose constitutionality has been questioned, and it does not include deficits in the capital budget or the supplemental budget, two separate documents.
After more than an hour of speeches, members of the House and Senate voted 33-27 to sustain the governor's veto of House Bill 69.
The override vote was almost identical to the votes on the original bill, which passed the House and Senate by a combined vote of 32-25.
Reps. Elexie Moore, R-Wasilla; Will Stapp, R-Fairbanks; and Mike Prax, R-North Pole, were absent from the original House vote and acted to sustain the veto. Sen. Donny Olson, D-Golovin, voted against the original bill but in favor of the override.
Afterward, he walked past reporters and did not answer questions about why he changed his vote.
The tally fell along caucus lines for members of the House, with members of the House's multipartisan majority — two Republicans, five independents and 14 Democrats — voting to override and all 19 members of the House's all-Republican minority voting to sustain.
Among members of the Senate, Sens. Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel, and Bert Stedman, R-Sitka, voted to sustain the veto alongside all six members of the Senate's minority caucus. The remaining 12 members of the Senate's bipartisan majority voted to override.
After the vote, the bill's sponsor, Rep. Rebecca Himschoot, I-Sitka, spoke with reporters and expressed her disappointment with the Legislature's failure to override the governor's veto for the second year in a row.
'Previously, when we had the funds, we lacked the political will,' she said. 'I believe that there is great political will at this point to try to do something about how we're funding our schools, or failing to fund our schools, and we lack the funds. So I think this outcome was somewhat predictable, but that doesn't make it any less disappointing.'
In a statement on social media, Dunleavy thanked lawmakers for voting to sustain his veto.
'Their action shows a clear understanding of our fiscal situation and the fact that the bill had zero policy to create a better educational outcome for our students,' he wrote.
He added that legislators now have 'a clear path' to consider an alternative bill he proposed on Friday.
The governor's bill includes a smaller funding increase and policy provisions he prefers.
'We've got 30 days to get the job done. Let's finish it. We can do this,' said Senate Minority Leader Mike Shower, R-Wasilla.
Members of the House minority also offered comments in support of the governor's alternative.
'We still have a lot of airstrip left,' said Rep. Bill Elam, R-Nikiski and a vote to sustain the veto. 'We haven't completely landed all of this. We can continue. We have some opportunities.'
But Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage and the Senate majority's lead negotiator with the governor, said that at least some of the governor's ideas are nonstarters.
Speaking to reporters, he offered an example: a section of the bill that would allow first-come, first-served open enrollment at public schools. That doesn't make sense, Wielechowski said, because it could keep local students from enrolling at the school closest to them.
More broadly and significantly, Wielechowski said there appears to be a fundamental disagreement in multiple sections of the bill about the amount of control the executive branch should have over local schools.
'I don't know how we can get over that,' he said.
Last week, Speaker of the House Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, told reporters that in his view, it's significant that school districts are not requesting the kinds of policy changes that the governor is seeking.
'There are some things in there that we can coalesce around, but we still have a ways to go and be able to reconcile policy differences,' he said.
If the failed override does mean no permanent funding increase this year, a one-year funding bonus remains possible. The House's draft operating budget includes a one-time, $253 million funding bonus equivalent to the vetoed formula.
That would be $79 million more than last year's budget, which contained a $174 million one-time bonus, but the House's proposed amount is subject to approval by the Senate and Dunleavy, who has line-item veto power. Senate budget leaders have said they plan to pass a budget without a deficit.
In a news conference last week, the governor said that if lawmakers present a deficit-free budget with one-time funding, he'd be willing to discuss the issue.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Gustavo Petro seeks to impose referendum by decree in Colombia
Gustavo Petro seeks to impose referendum by decree in Colombia

UPI

time18 minutes ago

  • UPI

Gustavo Petro seeks to impose referendum by decree in Colombia

SANTIAGO, Chile, June 5 (UPI) -- Colombia is at a democratic crossroads as President Gustavo Petro clashes with Congress and civil society over political disputes, legislative gridlock and stalled reforms. At the center of the dispute is Petro's announcement that he intends to call a national referendum by executive decree to revive parts of his agenda -- particularly a labor reform bill recently rejected by the Senate. For weeks, Petro's proposal to call a national referendum has polarized the political climate. His administration says the referendum would allow voters to weigh in on key issues, including healthcare and pension reforms, public debt restructuring and the potential formation of a constituent assembly. The opposition and several legal experts have called the measure unconstitutional and an overreach of presidential powers. Colombia's Constitution outlines specific requirements for calling a national referendum, including congressional approval. Petro's opponents warn that bypassing this step would set a dangerous precedent, weakening democratic institutions and the separation of powers. The possibility that Petro could issue a decree to call a national referendum without congressional approval may lead to a legal challenge before Colombia's Constitutional Court. The court's final ruling on the legality of such a decree will be critical in determining the future of the initiative and the balance of power among government institutions. In addition to the referendum controversy, Petro's labor reform proposal suffered a major defeat in the Senate, where it was rejected and shelved. The bill, one of the administration's flagship initiatives to "dignify labor and improve working conditions," failed to secure enough votes to move forward in the legislative process. The government's proposed labor reform included cutting the standard daytime work shift to eight hours, doubling pay for work on Sundays and holidays, formalizing employment for digital platform workers, extending paternity leave to 12 weeks and ensuring equal pay for men and women. Business groups, such as the National Business Association of Colombia and the National Federation of Merchants have been outspoken in opposing the bill. They argue the reform would have negative economic consequences, including job losses, reduced investment and a rise in unregulated employment. Despite the government's efforts and intense debate, the bill failed to win over enough senators, many of whom also raised concerns about the reform's potential impact on job creation and business competitiveness. Attention now turns to the Constitutional Court, whose decision will be pivotal for the future of the referendum proposal and the broader institutional balance in Colombia.

Trump and Musk's bromance ends after personal attacks over criticism of tax bill
Trump and Musk's bromance ends after personal attacks over criticism of tax bill

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump and Musk's bromance ends after personal attacks over criticism of tax bill

WASHINGTON – So much for the overnight White House stays, the rides on Air Force One and the glowing mutual praise. An all-out war erupted between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, ending their onetime alliance after Trump hit back at the mounting criticism the world's richest man has leveled against the president's signature tax and policy bill. Trump said on June 5 he was "very disappointed" with Musk and signaled his close relationship with the former top White House adviser was over as he publicly addressed Musk's efforts to kill his so-called "big, beautiful bill." "Elon and I had a great relationship," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. "I don't know if we will anymore." Musk quickly fired back, saying Trump wouldn't have won a second term and Republicans would be in the minority in both chambers of the U.S. Congress were it not for the quarter of a billion dollars he helped pump into his 2024 campaign. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk said in a post on X, the social media company he owns. "Such gratitude." The intensity of the exchange between the world's most powerful man and the world's richest man only increased from there. On Truth Social, Trump suggested going after Musk's companies and their federal contracts. "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!" the president wrote. Musk then countered, "Time to drop the really big bomb." He then added that Trump's name was in the Justice Department's files related to the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. "That is the real reason they have not been made public," Musk wrote. "Have a nice day, DJT!". Trump's initial remarks about Musk came in response to a question from a reporter as he sat next to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz for a bilateral meeting. "I'm very disappointed with Elon. I helped Elon a lot," Trump said during a lengthy answer. For days, Trump had remained silent as Musk called Trump's reconciliation bill "a disgusting abomination" and later urged his more than 200 million social media followers to lobby their representatives to "kill the bill." Musk has objected to the deficit implications of the legislation ‒ fiscal concerns that the White House rejects. The bill, which cleared the House last month with only Republican support, looks to cement Trump's domestic agenda by extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts, implementing new tax breaks for tipped wages and overtime, overhauling Medicaid and food stamps, beefing up border security and significantly increasing military spending. Trump wants Congress to complete its work and send the legislation to his desk for signature into law by July 4. Trump said he'd "always liked Elon" and noted Musk's criticism hadn't been directed at him but rather the legislation. "I'd rather have him criticize me than the bill, because the bill is incredible," Trump said. Trump later accused Musk of opposing the legislation because it would end a $7,500 consumer tax credit for buyers of electric vehicles, a policy of former President Joe Biden that has benefited electric car companies like Musk's Tesla. "I'm vey disappointed because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than anybody sitting here," Trump said. "He had no problem with it. All of a sudden, he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out that we're going to cut the EV mandate." More: Trump overpowers Musk's attacks on mega tax bill with blizzard of orders Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, was quick to respond. "Whatever," he said on X. "Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill." Musk added: "In the entire history of civilization, there has never been legislation that both big and beautiful. Everyone knows this!" He also disputed Trump's assertion that Musk was kept abreast of the bill's details. "False," Musk said. "This bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!" Musk left the White House last week after leading the government-slashing Department of Government Efficiency during the first four months of Trump's second term. Although Musk first voiced criticism of Trump's bill before his exit, Trump had seemed to smooth things over when he welcomed him to the Oval Office for a friendly send-off news conference on May 30. Yet the gap between Musk and the White House had started to widen. Musk, before his White House departure, asked for his special government employee status to be extended beyond 130 days to allow him to continue to lead DOGE, but the White House declined, a source told USA TODAY. Last weekend, Musk expressed disappointment after Trump withdrew his nominee for administrator of NASA, Jared Isaacman, a billionaire commercial astronaut with close ties to Musk. Then came Musk's attacks on Trump's legislation, jeopardizing the fate of the second-term president's domestic agenda. Musk's criticism has given Republican senators the courage to voice their own fiscal concerns with the bill's price tag. "I'll be honest," Trump said of Musk. "I think he misses the place. I think he got out there, and, all of a sudden, he wasn't in this beautiful Oval Office." Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison. (This story has been updated to add new information.) This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump and Musk's bromance blows up after war of personal attacks

Why Elon Musk isn't likely to sway a single Senate vote on the ‘Big Beautiful Bill': ‘Nobody wants to kill the bill'
Why Elon Musk isn't likely to sway a single Senate vote on the ‘Big Beautiful Bill': ‘Nobody wants to kill the bill'

New York Post

time38 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Why Elon Musk isn't likely to sway a single Senate vote on the ‘Big Beautiful Bill': ‘Nobody wants to kill the bill'

WASHINGTON — Elon Musk's push to 'kill' President Trump's 'big beautiful bill' isn't likely to change a single vote in the Senate — and it's not going to stop the passage of the tax-and-spending spending plan, Republican aides tell the Post. In fact, the former 'first buddy's' spectacular falling out with the president Thursday afternoon could make it even harder for the Republican holdouts to push for bigger spending cuts — because Musk has become absolutely toxic with Trump loyalists. 4 Elon Musk's push to 'kill' President Trump's 'big beautiful bill' isn't going to be a stumbling block for Senate Republicans, aides tell The Post, even as it's provided 'good cover' to some holdouts seeking to cut spending and rein in the debt. Getty Images Advertisement 'Until two days ago, Musk's criticism of the bill gave Senate conservatives space to fight for improvements and deeper spending cuts in the BBB,' one GOP aide told The Post. 'But nobody wants to kill the bill outright — it's not going to happen.' 'The president supports this bill and this effort,' another added. 'I don't think this back and forth will have any substantive effect on Senate Republicans.' A third offered that Musk was still 'giving good cover to those who have already come out swinging against it.' Advertisement 4 Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) declared Thursday that Musk was 'on point' about the reconciliation bill's budget-busting provisions. Getty Images Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) declared Thursday that Musk was 'on point' about the reconciliation bill's budget-busting provisions. 'Last year in my Festivus Report, I exposed that in 2024 alone, Americans paid $892 [billion] in interest,' he posted on X. 'That's 10% of the entire federal budget—gone. Not for bridges, schools, or healthcare. Just to keep the creditors at bay.' On Wednesday, fellow holdout Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) called the level of spending in the bill 'grotesque' during an interview on CNBC's 'Squawk Box.' Advertisement 4 On Wednesday, fellow holdout Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) called the level of spending in the bill 'grotesque' during an interview on CNBC's 'Squawk Box.' AP 'The president and Senate leadership has to understand that we're serious. They all say, 'Oh, we can pressure these guys.' No, you can't,' Johnson said. 'I ran 2010 as part of the Tea Party Movement. We were mortgaging children's future. We were $14 trillion in debt then now we're over $37 trillion. We're serious about this.' Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) have also expressed reservations, though the latter two voiced concerns about Medicaid reforms in the House version. The House-passed bill includes more than $1.5 trillion in spending reductions, a permanent extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts for individuals, hundreds of billions for border security and national defense as well as cutting green-energy tax credits approved in the last administration. Advertisement The Congressional Budget Office estimated that it will add $2.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. 4 Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) got dinged by Musk for old posts of expressing concern about the national debt. SHAWN THEW/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock The president unloaded on Musk in the Oval Office Thursday and said he had 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' after serving just 130 days as a special government employee overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore,' Trump admitted. The two escalated their social media feud Thursday afternoon, with the president even floating the elimination of the Tesla and SpaceX CEO's government 'subsidies and contracts.' 'Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!' Trump erupted. Musk shot back that the accusation was an 'obvious lie' and went on a tweeting tirade against Trump, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) by digging up old posts of theirs expressing concern about the national debt. Advertisement Senate Republicans currently hold a 53-47 vote advantage over Democrats in the upper chamber, meaning they will have to flip a handful of holdouts in order to pass the reconciliation bill. Because it's a budget bill and cannot be filibustered, Republicans only need 50 votes for the legislation to pass.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store