Ahead of school bond issue, temperatures run hot and cold
Wichita School District officials allowed KSN inside to tour the school and see the issues with its decaying infrastructure, overworked HVAC systems, and boiler rooms just days away from a vote on a $450 million bond issue.
'I would say the timing is a little bit fortuitous,' said Luke Newman, director of facilities for Wichita Public Schools. 'I think it's an opportunity to share with our public the reality of the challenges we deal with on a day-to-day basis, but it's a lot more pronounced when you deal with a cold snap like this.'
One bond opponent called the timing too convenient and the invitation to tour a chilly classroom political.
'They would rather our kids go to school and have to wear coats so they can manufacture a crisis and sell a political talking point rather than getting things fixed and getting focused on what they need to do,' said Ben Davis.
So far, voter turnout on the issue has been low, according to election officials. But as is typical for school bond issues in Wichita, opinions run high.
Davis, who leads the 'No' campaign, opposes the bond issue he said because the District has not been a good steward of its money and does not need more to address infrastructure issues. He said the District should focus on students' academic outcomes, such as more proficient standardized test scores.
'Our students are underperforming,' Davis said. 'We have major disciplinary issues in these schools and the administration is more focused and trying to sell us a story on these buildings than they are student proficiency.'
Meanwhile, the 'Yes' campaign says the district is not in a dire situation with proficiency scores and new facilities would help students to succeed. Enhanced safety and infrastructure make the educational experience better for students and teachers without raising taxes for residents. Supporters call it a strategic investment.
'Join us in helping to modernize our facilities and to get the equipment, the tools, and the technology that we need to get our students ready for the future, for the current workforce, and for the future workforce,' said Bradley Dyer, Jr. chairman of the 'Yes' for Wichita Kids campaign.
Both sides have been actively campaigning through mailers, texts, canvassing, meetings, and more community outreach.
Mike Harris, vice president of United Teachers of Wichita, said that he would vote yes on the bond issue but can see that the District could have done more to get its message across before today.
'I think it's unfortunate the district maybe hasn't communicated with the community, just the dire straits the district has been in before now, but these aren't new challenges,' Harris said.
Students who stayed home today were given excused absences. The day still counts as a school day.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is Gay Marriage Really Under Threat at the Supreme Court?
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered some stark words of warning this week about the prospects of same-sex marriage surviving over the long term as a constitutional right. "The Supreme Court will hear a case about gay marriage," Clinton said. "My prediction is they will do to gay marriage what they did to abortion." Is Clinton right to worry? A quick glance at some recent breaking news headlines might lead you to think that she is. "Supreme Court formally asked to overturn landmark same-sex ruling," reported ABC News. "SCOTUS has been asked to overturn same-sex marriage," observed USA Today. But the headlines only told part of the story. Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court was recently asked to revisit its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which held that "the right of same-sex couples to marry…is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment." The person who did the asking is Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who earned national headlines when she refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis has since been fighting an uphill legal battle to overturn Obergefell. Having recently lost before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, she is now trying to persuade the high court to take up her case on appeal. The odds are not exactly in Davis' favor. The Supreme Court is "formally asked" to hear thousands of new cases each term, yet the justices only agree to hear a small fraction of them. And most of the thousands of parties seeking such review are turned away by the Supreme Court without receiving so much as a single word of explanation. To request review by the Supreme Court, in other words, is definitely not the same thing as obtaining review by the Supreme Court. The chances are good that the petition for review in Davis v. Ermold will be denied, just like those thousands of other petitions are denied by the justices every term. However, it is also true that the Supreme Court does sometimes agree to hear a case for the express purpose of reconsidering one of its own precedents, such as when the Court took up Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) and used it as a vehicle for overturning Roe v. Wade (1973) and eliminating the constitutional right to obtain an abortion. That's the thing about precedent at the Supreme Court. It matters—until it doesn't. So, the real question to ponder is whether the requisite five votes exist on the Supreme Court right now to overturn Obergefell. Absent the magic number of five, Davis will never succeed in making Davis the next Dobbs. I don't think there are five such votes at the present. If I had to guess, I would say that only Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and perhaps also Neil Gorsuch, could be counted on to vote in favor of that hugely controversial result at this time. But we won't know for sure until the Supreme Court returns in a few weeks from its summer break. Until then, you too may guess away. The post Is Gay Marriage Really Under Threat at the Supreme Court? appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
The Trump ally fighting for criminal investigations of Obama, Biden and Clinton
For three years, Mike Davis, a Republican lawyer and former legal counsel to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has pushed for federal criminal investigations of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and senior FBI, CIA and Justice Department officials. Now, a series of recent investigations approved by Attorney General Pam Bondi suggests to Davis that his long-sought goal is most likely approaching. Bondi this month approved two federal criminal investigations of New York Attorney General Letitia James and one of Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. Bondi also instructed an unnamed federal prosecutor to begin a grand jury investigation of whether Obama administration officials committed federal crimes when they assessed Russia's actions during the 2016 election. Bondi's order came weeks after National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard accused Obama and his aides of a 'treasonous conspiracy' and said she had sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department. Davis applauded Bondi's actions in a recent interview. 'This is the greatest conspiracy in American history,' he said, referring to what he says are Democratic plots against President Donald Trump. 'There must be the most severe legal, political and financial consequences for this unprecedented weaponization. This must never happen again.' Bondi's office and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Obama, Biden, Clinton and former FBI, Justice Department and CIA officials have repeatedly dismissed the allegations. Democrats say new probes are an effort to distract attention from allegations that Trump has abused his power in his second term and from his failure to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. Former senior Justice Department and FBI officials note that a Trump-appointed special counsel and Republican senators already investigated the claims and found no crimes. They called the idea 'absurd,' 'bananas' and 'insane.' Davis said he is unaware of Bondi's next step. But he praised the recent party-line Senate confirmation of a new U.S. attorney in South Florida, Jason Reding Quiñones, whom he called a personal friend and urged senators to support. 'I want Jason to set up his own grand jury and pursue this aggressively,' Davis said. 'And I want him to put criminals in prison for a very long time.' Road map for a Florida federal investigation Davis called for Quiñones to convene a special federal grand jury in Port St. Lucie, the seat of St. Lucie County, which Trump carried by 10 percentage points last year. It would investigate what he calls a Democratic conspiracy to undermine Trump stretching from the 2016 campaign to the 2022 FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago estate to today. Quiñones, a Miami-Dade County judge appointed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis a year ago, is a former federal prosecutor in Miami and a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force Reserve. He was a major crimes prosecutor but received poor performance evaluations, The Miami Herald reported. Quiñones filed and dropped a racial discrimination complaint and moved to the Civil Division, where he received satisfactory reviews. Quiñones and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Viewing the Mar-a-Lago search as part of a decadelong anti-Trump conspiracy serves a legal purpose, legal experts said. It could allow prosecutors to treat alleged acts from 2016 and 2017 as part of a single conspiracy and bypass a five-year statute of limitations on denial of rights charges. Davis said a 'conspiracy against rights' federal criminal charge could be used in the Florida investigation that he called for Quiñones to open. A special grand jury could investigate whether actions by Clinton and Obama in 2016 and 2017 violated Trump's rights as part of a single broad, anti-Trump conspiracy by Democrats that Davis believes includes the Mar-a-Lago search and continues today. Legal experts have noted that the "conspiracy against rights" charge was created by the Enforcement Act of 1870, which Congress passed to prevent white people from blocking freed slaves from voting. Davis said special counsel Jack Smith used the same charge when he accused Trump of trying to illegally reverse the outcome of the 2020 election in seven states that he lost. 'The Democrats set the precedent that former presidents are fair game,' Davis said. Three former FBI and Justice Department officials with direct knowledge of the Mar-a-Lago search told NBC News that it was conducted properly and approved by a federal judge and that it was the result of Trump's own actions. The officials said the National Archives first alerted them that Trump appeared to have classified materials. Trump then declined repeated requests to return the classified documents for a year. A former senior Justice Department official dismissed Davis' calls for a criminal investigation of the Mar-a-Lago search. 'It's outrageous,' the former senior Justice Department official said. Multiple investigations of Democratic rivals underway Three people familiar with the matter confirmed to NBC News this month that the Justice Department has opened a federal criminal investigation of lawsuits the office of James, New York's attorney general, filed against Trump. James has dismissed the Justice Department investigation, which is based in Albany, as political payback. The James probe is examining whether the state attorney general's office committed 'conspiracy against rights' and violated Trump's civil rights when it brought a lawsuit that claimed Trump grossly inflated the values of his assets for personal profit. A Manhattan judge ruled last year that Trump did so and ordered him to pay a roughly $500 million fine, a ruling that infuriated him. Separately, the Bondi Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation in Virginia into possible mortgage fraud by James and another into Schiff in connection with an allegation of potential mortgage fraud in Maryland. James and Schiff have said the investigations are political retribution. Bondi appointed Ed Martin, a Trump loyalist who represented Jan. 6 defendants and praised Trump's mass pardons of them, to oversee both probes. Could Democrats be indicted and convicted? Daniel Richman, a former federal prosecutor and Columbia Law School professor whom Republicans have accused of conspiring with former FBI Director James Comey, said filing criminal charges based on debunked claims is possible. 'If you're willing to ignore the facts,' Richman said, 'you can come up with criminal charges.' But Richman cautioned that securing a federal indictment, trial and conviction — even in areas where the majority of voters voted for Trump — would be difficult given the many actors and elements involved. Prosecutors need indictments from grand juries, judges can dismiss weak cases, witnesses must be credible, and jurors must unanimously agree on guilt. 'Jurors take their duties seriously,' Richman said. 'I'm not ready to say the people in these jurisdictions are totally in the tank for this administration.' A former senior national security official who spoke anonymously, citing the Trump administration's public attacks on former officials, suggested two potential scenarios: 'Either Bondi and Gabbard know that there is indeed no evidence of any criminal activity, in which case it's completely corrupt and a political stunt,' the former official said, 'or, more darkly, they actually believe this stuff and are acting out of authoritarian instinct and this is something out of Orwell.' This article was originally published on
USA Today
2 days ago
- USA Today
Same-sex marriage has overwhelming support. Supreme Court should let ruling stand.
We have two decades of evidence that marriage equality has helped millions of people across America. LGBTQ+ people want what everyone else wants, including to live in marriage with those they love. As national news outlets recently picked up the story about a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the future of equal marriage for same-sex couples, both of us received a barrage of messages from worried friends and colleagues. We understand people are concerned about their families and children, or about whether they'll be able to legally marry in the future. In the tumult of these times, nearly everyone is anxious about how to protect themselves and their loved ones. Let's set the foundation about where we are. Marriage equality is the law of the land and overwhelmingly supported by the American people. The landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling from 2015 affirmed the protections in our U.S. Constitution saying that people, not the government, should be able to decide whom they marry, and that equal protection requires access to legal marriage for same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as others. It was rightly decided under our constitutional due process and equal protection principles. The 2022 Respect for Marriage Act, approved by bipartisan majorities in Congress, enshrines respect for those marriages under federal and state law. Over 823,000 married same-sex couples live in the US A recent report from The Williams Institute found that there are more than 823,000 married same-sex couples in the United States as of June, and they are raising nearly 300,000 children. These couples have married because they love each other, they want legal formalization of their mutual commitment and responsibility, and they want to provide stable, protective homes for their children. While we should take seriously any petition to the Supreme Court, the one submitted recently is especially weak. It comes from the lawyers for Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples 10 years ago and instructed her office to do the same. Eventually, a court granted damages to a couple who were repeatedly denied a license. Davis has been to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals three times about the couples' suit and lost each time, and the entire 6th Circuit ‒ including six judges appointed by President Donald Trump ‒ has unanimously denied her a rehearing. Opinion: What happens if gay marriage is overturned? The question alone is horrifying. Davis' team has requested review from the Supreme Court, of those damages and of the Obergefell ruling, which is her right. However, given that the issues that Davis claims need resolution are narrow and already well settled, it would be highly unusual for the Supreme Court to grant review. The freedom to marry for same-sex couples remains extremely popular. People from all walks of life, across faith groups and across the political spectrum continue to express strong support. A majority of people in every single state are supportive, according to the Public Religion Research Institute. Recent Gallup polling found that 68% of Americans support marriage for same-sex couples, and a survey conducted by three right-of-center polling firms tracked support at 72%, including 56% of Republicans. Former opponents now support same-sex marriage Individuals and entities that were some of the strongest opponents of marriage equality have evolved. Two decades ago, the two of us worked together in Massachusetts to win and protect marriage in the very first state. Then-Gov. Mitt Romney fought hard to ensure the ruling never took effect. And yet in 2022, Romney voted for the Respect for Marriage Act, stating that "Congress − and I − esteem and love all of our fellow Americans equally.' In 2008, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints played a lead role in undoing marriage equality in California via Proposition 8. Fourteen years later, the church also backed the Respect for Marriage Act. For so many Americans, this isn't about politics. It's about letting people live their lives. Same-sex couples build families and contribute to their communities just like anyone else. That's the reality, and it's working. Opinion: Supreme Court isn't poised to end gay marriage, despite the media's fearmongering We now have two decades of evidence that marriage equality has helped millions of people across the country. In 2024, the nonpartisan RAND released a study about marriage for same-sex couples. The think tank found many positive outcomes, including for children, health, financial well-being and relationship stability. The researchers pressure-tested opponents' claims of harms to society, like rising divorce rates or lower marriage rates, and found 'no empirical basis for concerns that allowing same-sex couples to marry has negatively affected different-sex couples and families.' We've never taken our eye off this ball, and we never will. We will learn as early as this fall what the U.S. Supreme Court will do with the request from Davis' lawyers. Should the high court grant review, LGBTQ+ legal and advocacy groups and millions of Americans from all walks of life will engage to protect what we all long fought for and the overwhelming majority of people support. For decades, we've seen how finding common ground on why marriage matters for families and communities − and why it is good for everyone, regardless of who they are or whom they love − moves our community forward. Together, we can remind the country that LGBTQ+ people want what everyone else wants, including to live in marriage with the people they love, to care for their families, and to raise their kids in safety and dignity. Mary Bonauto, a senior director at GLAD Law, argued the first marriage win in Massachusetts in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health and Obergefell v. Hodges before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015. Marc Solomon, a partner at Civitas Public Affairs Group, was national campaign director of Freedom to Marry. He is the author of "Winning Marriage: The Inside Story of How Same-Sex Couples Took On the Politicians and Pundits – and Won."
