State budget drafts limit public schools' choices to get rid of buildings
Ohio is drafting its biennial budget, a more than 5,000-page document that includes some new changes to how public schools can get rid of unused school buildings. The budget, House Bill 96, is still in Senate hearings after being passed by the House, but if left unchanged, public schools will now have to try to sell unused buildings — sometimes at a lower value — before they are allowed to demolish them. See previous coverage of how the budget could effect public schools in the video player above.
How lawmakers want to change the teacher pension fund
Ohio already requires public schools to offer to sell unused buildings to STEM, college preparatory and charter schools within the district's boundaries before selling them elsewhere or demolishing them. Under H.B. 96, schools would also have to offer sales to private schools.
The state defines unused school buildings as any administrative or operational building owned by a public school that has not been used in more than a year, or any academic building operating at less than 60% capacity. In Gov. Mike DeWine's version of the bill, buildings that fall under 60% of the building's highest enrollment over 10 years would also count as unused, although the House removed that provision.
Public districts must offer these buildings to other non-public schools first, and have to sell the building for the appraised fair market value of the property. If no one buys it, under current law, the school may then demolish it or put it up for public auction, then private sales. The state budget would invite more potential buyers at lower prices by inviting private schools to purchase them.
DeWine's budget would also change how much schools could sell buildings for, adjusting sales prices from fair market value to the 'value of the property for operation as an educational facility.' The House also did not carry this provision over.
Ohio lawmakers push for stricter rules on 'obscene' drag queens, indecent exposure
Under H.B. 96, school districts would be required to put buildings up for public auction before they can demolish them. School districts would also be required to sell the land to the highest bidder at a public auction, making it more difficult for schools to demolish buildings.
Both current law and the budget bill give preference to high-performing charter schools during building sales. However, H.B. 96 redefines a high-performing charter school to determine its performance based on the public schools around it, rather than solely on its achievements.
Under current law, a community school must get three stars, or improve their score for three consecutive years in its achievement rating. Under H.B. 96, the achievement rating must be better than the public school district it resides in for two years in a row. The change directly equates charter schools' success with outperforming local public schools.
Unused buildings that are located on or adjacent to land still actively used by the school are not required to be sold.
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
The Hill
14 minutes ago
- The Hill
Watch live: Newsom outlines plan to combat Trump, GOP redistricting
California Gov. Gavin Newsom will speak to reporters Thursday afternoon as the mid-decade redistricting battle heats up across the U.S. ahead of the 2026 midterms, a day after announcing the ' Liberation Day ' event. His remarks come as Democrats push back against GOP 'gerrymandering' efforts in Texas that could give Republicans five additional seats in next year's election. Newsom sent a letter to President Trump and red state leaders earlier this week urging them to end the redistricting war. After Trump missed the deadline to respond, the governor said the Golden State would also be redrawing its House maps to counteract attempts to 'rig' the lines in the Lone Star State. The event is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. EDT. Watch the live video above.
an hour ago
Newsom to make announcement on redistricting after threatening to end Trump's presidency
California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic leaders are set to hold a news conference on Thursday where they'll make a "major announcement" in response to Republican-led efforts in Texas to redraw the state's congressional maps. Newsom said Tuesday night that California will move forward with drawing new congressional maps that "WILL END THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY" and allow Democrats to take control of the U.S. House of Representatives. He had previously sent a letter to President Donald Trump on Monday asking the president to tell Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and other Republican governors to abandon efforts to draw new congressional maps in Texas, which could help Republicans flip three to five congressional seats if passed. Republicans currently hold a slim majority in the U.S. House with 219 seats to Democrats' 212. Other states such as Missouri, Indiana, New York, and Illinois have begun weighing mid-decade redistricting in light of Texas' effort. Newsom has floated holding a special election statewide on Nov. 4 for Californians to vote on new congressional maps and temporarily bypass the state's independent redistricting commission. The California Citizens Redistricting Commission is meant to prevent gerrymandering and partisan influence. Both Democrats and Republicans in the state have expressed concerns over sidelining the commission. No maps have been released publicly, but multiple legislative sources familiar with the matter told ABC station KGO-TV that five Republican seats would be targeted, going tit-for-tat with Texas. But if lawmakers don't declare a special election by Aug. 22, it would be nearly impossible for the state to run a statewide election that meets federal standards or would hold up in a court challenge, according to the office of the California Secretary of State. Elections officials in California have also pointed to federal deadlines such as the 45-day-pre-election deadline to issue ballots to military and overseas voters, which could make it more technically challenging to run an election on short notice. Republicans have also cried foul. U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., who has proposed a bill that would nullify any new congressional maps introduced before the next U.S. census, told Newsmax on Tuesday, "Gavin Newsom is a unique threat to democracy. He is trying to overturn the will of voters … So I've introduced this bill saying this cannot be done. We need to stop Newsom's scheme in its tracks. And that will also stop this brewing redistricting war from breaking out across the country, which I don't think is going to be a good thing." Newsom's gambit comes as Democratic state legislators in Texas remain outside of the state in an effort to run out the clock on a special legislative session in Texas that is considering new maps by denying quorum. Abbott said Wednesday that the House of Representatives would be willing to "get to work" if Democrats returned to Texas for the second special session Friday but are keeping all options on the table if they don't come back. "If they show up, great, we'll get to work and get all these bills passed. If they don't show up, we'll continue with the law enforcement efforts to try to track them down, arrest them and take them to the Capitol, but we will be ready either way," he told Texas-based radio host Mark Davis. Texas House Democratic Caucus chair Rep. Gene Wu, in a statement Wednesday afternoon, said that another special legislative session in the Texas legislature could be "a reset moment" for getting aid to victims of the flooding in central Texas – but he placed the onus on Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. Wu wrote, "This could be a reset moment: a chance to finally deliver real solutions for flood victims and fix the broken emergency preparedness system that continues to put every community in Texas at risk … ready to fight for flood relief, defend our communities, and invest in the safety Texans deserve. Will the Governor finally work with us for our families in the Second Special Session?"
Time Magazine
4 hours ago
- Time Magazine
How to Fix America's Gerrymandering Problem
President Donald Trump has thrust the country into a new political battle: mutually assured gerrymandering. And the antidote is what we call 'mutually assured representation.' The current saga began in June, when Trump called for Texas to start a congressional redistricting process in the middle of the decade—rather than after the next census in 2030. Last month, Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott called a special legislative session to replace the state's current House map which would favor his party. Now, Trump's push for mid-decade redistricting in Republican-controlled states appears likely to spread to Missouri, Ohio, and Florida. If this happens, Democrats would have retaliate in the states they control in order to have a chance at winning a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives in 2026. In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul has declared her readiness to 'fight fire with fire.' In California, Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed holding a special election in November for voters to approve a ballot initiative allowing the legislature to redraw the state's congressional map. Read More: 'Time to Stand Down': Newsom Gives Trump Deadline to Call Off Redistricting Plan In Texas, Republicans are claiming that they are entitled to five more congressional seats—even if they receive the exact same number of votes as before. To achieve this, they can redraw the boundaries of the districts that Democrats won in 2024, moving Democratic voters into heavily Republican districts where their votes will not matter, and moving Republican voters into previously Democratic districts so that they can win these seats. In 2024, Republicans in Texas won 25 of the state's 38 seats, and Democrats won 13. With this new map, Republicans could win in 30 of 38 congressional districts. The proposed gerrymander is likely to give Republicans four or five new seats even if Democrats win substantially more votes for Congress than they did in 2025. According to our calculation, this will happen even if there is a five percentage point swing towards Democrats in the 2026 elections. In recent years, just a few congressional seats have determined control of the House, and a flip of just five seats on its own might determine the national result. Partisan gerrymandering makes it harder for voters to hold their representatives accountable. Congressional district elections become uncompetitive. With reelection in the general assured, candidates are focused on catering to their own party base, which tends to be a more extreme subset of their constituents. Through this process, partisan gerrymandering often reduces effective representation in Congress and can play a role in crowding out moderate and independent voters. But here's a twist: President Trump's new wave of extreme gerrymandering may actually backfire, paving the way for electoral reform. Partisan gerrymandering is unpopular with voters, as we've seen repeatedly in recent years. Voters in states such as Michigan, Arizona, Colorado, and New Jersey, have supported nonpartisan redistricting commissions. In 2021, Democrats tried and failed to pass the For the People Act, a bill that would have limited partisan gerrymandering nationwide and implemented non-partisan redistricting commissions in every state. But Republican senators blocked the bill. Gerrymandering reform often fails because only one party makes the necessary reforms. For instance, previous successful anti-gerrymandering measures in states like California and New York created fairer maps in each state—but actually cost the party in power (Democrats in both instances) more seats than the margin determining control of the House in 2024. One proposed solution is bipartisan redistricting commissions. These can fail when the parties cannot agree on a map. For instance, the Virginia commission deadlocked in 2022, leaving the courts to draw the maps. Then there are more radical solutions that effectively blow up the current electoral system as we know it, such as multi-member districts or aproportional representation. But we think it is unrealistic to get rid of a system that has been in place for two hundred and fifty years. Instead, we believe it is possible to make reforms that keep the current electoral system while also overcoming some of its flaws. We've developed a process-based solution that has a number of appealing properties. It's inspired by the problem parents face when dividing a cake between two children. How can they make sure everyone gets an equal slice? One child cuts the cake in two, and the other child chooses between the two pieces. Our approach, which we call the 'Define-Combine Procedure,' splits the map drawing process into two simple stages. First, one party divides the state into twice the number of needed districts—for example, 20 sub-districts for a state that needs 10 congressional seats. Then, the second party pairs those sub-districts into the final 10 districts. The result is a fairer map than either party would have drawn on its own. Instead of mutually assured gerrymandering, this approach leads to mutually assured representation. Read More: Gerrymandering Isn't New—But Now We Have a Solution We used real-world census and election data from 2020 in each state to forecast the results of extreme partisan gerrymandering and the Define-Combine Procedure in every state. In Texas, Republicans could draw a map where they won 30 of 38 congressional seats. If Democrats could unilaterally gerrymander Texas, they could create a map with 28 Democratic and 10 Republican seats. Depending on party control of redistricting in Texas, a whopping 20 seats could change hands. When we used the Define-Combine Procedure, the resulting map would produce 19 Republicans seats and 17 Democratic seats, with the two remaining seats changing hands depending on which party defines and which combines. This result comes much closer to the 53% of the two-party vote that Republicans won in 2020. Scaling nationwide, we estimate that extreme gerrymandering could determine which party holds almost 200 seats, out of the 435 seats in the House. Processes like ours could reduce the advantage that a party can earn just from drawing a map, with outcomes that are less biased and closer to proportional. The trick here is to use the impulse to score more seats for your party as a tool for fairness instead. It's a partisan solution for a partisan problem. One party alone cannot protect voting rights and ensure fair representation. That's why, in 1965, Democrats and Republicans came together to pass the Voting Rights Act—and why they continued to amend and renew it for the next 40 years. But, a series of Supreme Court decisions over the last 12 years have substantially weakened the Voting Rights Act and allowed states to engage in extreme partisan gerrymandering. Now, a case before the court next year is likely to further diminish its remaining provisions. Instead of settling for mutually assured gerrymandering, with less effective representation, reduced accountability, and uncompetitive elections, both parties should unite behind solutions that achieve fairer outcomes nationwide. Such an outcome seems unrealistic right now as tit-for-tat gerrymandering ramps up, but the moment when the dust settles and voters take stock of the damage done may well be the best opportunity to address the scourge of partisan gerrymandering. If we don't seize this opportunity, America will pay the price.
