K-12 education voucher bill headed to SC governor's desk
COLUMBIA — A bill that would allow up to 15,000 K-12 students in South Carolina to receive $7,500 scholarships next year for private tuition headed to the governor's desk Thursday after the House agreed to a compromise with the Senate.
Opponents of the bill in the Senate proposed a number of changes, none of which passed. Democrats in the House put up a final stand Thursday, even while acknowledging they didn't have the votes to actually stop the bill.
This proved to be the case: The House sent the compromise to the governor's desk with a vote of 73-32. No Democrats voted for it. Three Republicans voted against it.
SC House and Senate reach compromise on K-12 vouchers
Gov. Henry McMaster is expected to quickly sign the bill into law.
The issue was a top priority for Republican leadership after the state Supreme Court struck down private tuition payments last September as unconstitutional.
Private donors have been paying tuition for roughly 800 students since then.
In the coming school year, the bill would provide scholarships to up to 10,000 students whose families make up to 300% of the federal poverty level.
Eligibility would increase in 2026-2027 to 15,000 students living in households with incomes up to 500% of the federal poverty level. For a family of four, that would be nearly $161,000 under 2025 guidelines.
Students who are in public school and whose families make less than 300% of the federal poverty level would get priority in receiving the scholarships through early application windows.
While the compromise doesn't create universal school choice like the version the House passed, it does leave the door open for legislators to put more money into the program if more than 15,000 students apply.
'Providing parents with more options for educating their children is in the best interest of our students, parents and the state of South Carolina,' said House Education Chairwoman Shannon Erickson, R-Beaufort.
Ultimately, the state Supreme Court will decide if the law takes effect.
The bill is almost certain to bring another legal challenge. In a statement soon after the bill passed, the South Carolina Education Association called the bill unconstitutional. The teachers' advocacy group filed the last lawsuit that led to last fall's ruling.
'Diverting these funds from the many for the benefit of a few, by whatever means, undermines our public schools and threatens the quality of education that is vital for all South Carolinians,' the statement read. 'Our children deserve better.'
Supporters of the bill are hopeful that drawing from a different revenue source or sending the money through a trustee hired by the state superintendent will make this version constitutional.
That combines ideas from the House, which instituted the idea of a trustee, and the Senate, which wanted to pull from state lottery revenue. The final compromise leaves it for legislators to decide whether to take the money from lottery profits or the state's general fund.
'We listened, we learned, we took both sides of the (Supreme Court) opinion, and we sat down and wrote what we thought was the best solution,' Erickson said.
Opponents weren't convinced.
Regardless of the specific source, the money is still public, said Rep. Kambrell Garvin. The state constitution bars public money from directly benefitting private schools.
'It's a bad idea because it is clearly unconstitutional,' the Columbia Democrat said.
Lottery profits are primarily used to pay for scholarships to colleges — both public and private. High school graduates earning the academic-based scholarships can use them at the South Carolina college of their choice.
Supporters in the Senate argued scholarships for private K-12 schools should be legal too.
Garvin, who spent three years as a school teacher, questioned whether using lottery profits for K-12 scholarships could reduce funding available for college scholarships. That would require legislators to dip into the general fund to provide all the scholarships they qualify for by law.
'I think what will happen is that we're going to bite off more than we can chew,' Garvin said.
Democrats saw the bill as a step toward universal school choice, which would allow every student in the state to access the money, regardless of income level. The 500% poverty level already incorporates most families in South Carolina, including parents already paying for private schools, House Democrats said.
Garvin also pointed to what opponents say is a lack of accountability over the program. Private schools don't have the same oversight as public schools, meaning the state will have little control over the quality of education students receive once they use the money, he said.
That could lead to any number of issues for students, he said.
'We are opening Pandora's Box,' Garvin said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
13 minutes ago
- Politico
Solar for None? What's next after federal program axed.
Soldier on. Hang it up. Fight. Those are some of the options that solar energy nonprofits and states are weighing after the Trump administration moved last week to terminate the Biden-era $7 billion Solar for All program. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin argued that July's passage of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act means the agency lacks both the authority and the money 'to keep this boondoggle alive.' So far, none of the 60 awardees has announced plans to challenge the actions nor to agree to the terminations. But three recipients, granted anonymity to speak about internal discussions, told our Jean Chemnick they're weighing both options — including whether to accept EPA's offer for access to money to help wind down their programs. EPA is 'basically trying to make it sound like you'll never get your funding unless you agree to their terms, and that's just not correct,' Jillian Blanchard, vice president of climate and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government, told Jean about EPA's termination notices. 'People are owed what they're owed.' President Joe Biden's climate law created Solar for All as part of the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. It was designed to promote community solar energy in underserved areas, through grants to each state and territory, though some grants went to nonprofits in states whose leaders did not want it. The awards ranged from $43.5 million to nearly $250 million. The Trump administration has been trying for months to terminate the other $20 billion of grants in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, but Solar for All had been safe, until Trump's megabill became law. Representatives of the three recipients told Jean that some awardees don't have the money to continue their activities without the federal money. Some can't even access EPA's grant portal to cover past outlays. Duanne Andrade, executive director of the Solar and Energy Loan Fund, which received a $156 million grant to set up a solar revolving loan for Florida, called EPA's move 'disheartening.' 'In Florida, we're about to see the highest energy rate increase in history,' she told Jean. 'And all of this impacts low- and moderate-income people more than anyone. These are the people that are paying more already for capital, for energy, for housing, for everything.' Senate Democrats enter the frayMeanwhile, supporters of Solar for All are pushing back on the Trump administration's justification for terminating the grants. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) argued in a Friday letter that the Republican law repealed only unobligated funds. EPA had already obligated the Solar for All money, so it can't be clawed back, they said, citing statements from congressional Republicans and the Congressional Budget Office. 'Neither CBO nor Republicans understood the repeal and rescission of the GGRF to save anything more than EPA's unspent oversight dollars,' the Democrats write. 'Wishful statutory interpretation on the part of EPA does not enable EPA to cancel lawfully obligated grants.' It's Friday — thank you for tuning in to POLITICO's Power Switch. I'm your host, Timothy Cama. Power Switch is brought to you by the journalists behind E&E News and POLITICO Energy. Send your tips, comments, questions to tcama@ Today in POLITICO Energy's podcast: Jessie Blaeser breaks down the exaggerated cost-savings numbers from the Department of Government Efficiency. Power Centers Wind, solar crackdown deepensThe Treasury Department tightened the rules Friday for renewable energy projects to qualify for federal tax credits. The new Treasury Department guidance would undo years of existing practice defining when a solar or wind project has started construction, a key metric that spells out when developers can claim tax credits, Kelsey Tamborrino and James Bikales report. The guidance comes after Trump ordered Treasury in July to tighten the definition for the start of construction, in an attempt to limit 'market distorting subsidies for unreliable, foreign controlled energy sources.' The Treasury rules have been at the center of tug-of-war between Republican moderates and hardliners in recent months, Benjamin Storrow writes. Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John Curtis of Utah, moderate Republicans, have argued that Treasury should continue to employ the traditional definition for the start of construction, while conservatives like Rep. Chip Roy of Texas have argued for a more stringent definition. The still-mysterious Empire Wind studyA federal records request by POLITICO's E&E News returned an almost completely redacted study by the Trump administration that had been used to justify canceling the Empire Wind project off the New York coast earlier this year, Ian M. Stevenson and Mike Soraghan write. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said the Biden administration 'rushed approval' of the project based on 'flawed science.' Construction later restarted, but Interior has repeatedly refused to release the study cited by Burgum. In the copy of the report, 27 pages were fully blacked out. Interior cited a 'deliberative process' privilege that agencies sometimes use. Plastics treaty negotiations collapseUnited Nations talks on a treaty to end plastic pollution collapsed in the early hours of Friday morning, as countries failed to agree on the basic parameters of the text. The latest setback in discussions followed a 10-day summit in Geneva, Switzerland. After nearly three years of deliberations, it was meant to be the final round of negotiations after previous talks in Busan, South Korea, also failed to yield a deal, Leonie Cater reports. In Other News Trump-Putin summit: The Trump administration has discussed the use of Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker vessels to support gas development in Alaska as one possible deal to pursue in talks with President Vladimir Putin, according to Reuters. Manufacturing change: Heat pumps used in industrial settings could offer $1.7 trillion in public health benefits from 2030 to 2050, the American Lung Association finds. Subscriber Zone A showcase of some of our best subscriber content. Human pollutants influenced a marine climate cycle in the Pacific Ocean, contributing to drought in the Western U.S., a study finds. The Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is cutting 130 jobs because of budget uncertainty. U.S. utilities face soaring costs and worsening shortages in the supply of electric power transformers, threatening to slow the growth of data centers and artificial intelligence expansion. That's it for today, folks. Thanks for reading, and have a great weekend!
Fox News
23 minutes ago
- Fox News
Schwarzenegger taunts Newsom with message targeting Dem redistricting push
Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is pumping up for a new fight. The longtime Hollywood action star, the last Republican governor in Democrat-dominated California, says he's mobilizing to oppose the push by current Gov. Gavin Newsom to temporarily scrap the state's nonpartisan redistricting commission. "I'm getting ready for the gerrymandering battle," Schwarzenegger wrote in a social media post Friday, which included a photo of the former professional bodybuilding champion lifting weights. Schwarzenegger, who rose to worldwide fame as the star of the film "The Terminator" four decades ago, wore a T-shirt in the photo that said "terminate gerrymandering." The social media post by Schwarzenegger comes as Democratic leaders in the Democrat-dominated California legislature are moving forward with new proposed congressional district maps that would create up to five more blue-leaning U.S. House seats in the nation's most populous state. Newsom on Thursday teamed up in Los Angeles with congressional Democrats and legislative leaders in the heavily blue state to unveil their redistricting playbook. Newsom and the Democrats are aiming to counter the ongoing effort by President Donald Trump and Republicans to create up to five GOP-friendly congressional districts in red state Texas at the expense of Democrat-controlled seats. "Today is liberation day in the state of California," Newsom said. "Donald Trump, you have poked the bear, and we will punch back." Newsom vowed to "meet fire with fire" with his push for a rare — but not unheard of — mid-decade redistricting. The Republican push in Texas, which comes at Trump's urging, is part of a broader effort by the GOP across the country to pad its razor-thin House majority to keep control of the chamber in the 2026 midterms, when the party in power traditionally faces political headwinds and loses seats. Trump and his political team are aiming to prevent what happened during his first term in the White House, when Democrats stormed back to grab the House majority in the 2018 midterms. While the Republican push in Texas to upend the current congressional maps doesn't face constitutional constraints, Newsom's path in California is much more complicated. The governor is pushing to hold a special election this year to get voter approval to undo the constitutional amendments that created the nonpartisan redistricting commission. A two-thirds majority vote in the Democrat-dominated California legislature as early as next week would be needed to hold the referendum. Democratic Party leaders are confident they'll have the votes to push the constitutional amendment and the new proposed congressional maps through the legislature. "Here we are in open and plain sight before one vote is cast in the 2026 midterm election, and here [Trump] is once again trying to rig the system," Newsom charged. Newsom said his plan is "not complicated. We're doing this in reaction to a president of the United States that called a sitting governor in the state of Texas and said, 'Find me five seats.' We're doing it in reaction to that act." The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) said "Newsom's made it clear: he'll shred California's Constitution and trample over democracy — running a cynical, self-serving playbook where Californians are an afterthought, and power is the only priority." But Newsom defended his actions, saying "we're working through a very transparent, temporary and public process. We're putting the maps on the ballot and putting the power to the people." Thursday's appearance by Newsom, considered a likely contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, also served as a fundraising kickoff to raise massive amounts of campaign cash needed to sell the redistricting push statewide in California. The nonpartisan redistricting commission, created over 15 years ago, remains popular among most Californians, according to public opinion polling. That's why Newsom and California Democratic lawmakers are promising not to scrap the commission entirely, but rather replace it temporarily by the legislature for the next three election cycles. "We will affirm our commitment to the state independent redistricting after the 2030 census, but we are asking the voters for their consent to do midterm redistricting," Newsom said. Their efforts are opposed by a number of people supportive of the nonpartisan commission. Among the most visible members is likely to be Schwarzenegger. "He calls gerrymandering evil, and he means that. He thinks it's truly evil for politicians to take power from people," Schwarzenegger spokesperson Daniel Ketchell told Politico earlier this month. "He's opposed to what Texas is doing, and he's opposed to the idea that California would race to the bottom to do the same thing." Schwarzenegger, during his tenure as governor, had a starring role in the passage of constitutional amendments in California in 2008 and 2010 that took the power to draw state legislative and congressional districts away from politicians and placed it in the hands of an independent commission. "Most people don't really think about an independent commission much, one way or another. And that's both an opportunity and a challenge for Newsom," Jack Pitney, an American politics professor at California's Claremont McKenna College, told Fox News. "It's going to take a lot of effort and money to energize Democrats and motivate them to show up at the polls," Pitney said, adding Newsom's effort "is all about motivating people who don't like Trump."
Chicago Tribune
29 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
President Donald Trump's tax law could cause Medicare cuts if Congress doesn't act, CBO says
WASHINGTON — The federal budget deficits caused by President Donald Trump's tax and spending law could trigger automatic cuts to Medicare if Congress does not act, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Friday. The CBO estimates that Medicare, the federal health insurance program for Americans over age 65, could potentially see as much as $491 billion from 2027 to 2034 if Congress does not act to mitigate a 2010 law that forces across-the-board cuts to many federal programs once legislation increases the federal deficit. The latest report from CBO showed how Trump's signature tax and spending law could put new pressure on federal programs that are bedrocks of the American social safety net. Trump and Republicans pledged not to cut Medicare as part of the legislation, but the estimated $3.4 trillion that the law adds to the federal deficit over the next decade means that many Medicare programs could still see cuts. In the past, Congress has always acted to mitigate cuts to Medicare and other programs, but it would take some bipartisan cooperation to do so. Democrats, who requested the analysis from CBO, jumped on the potential cuts. 'Republicans knew their tax breaks for billionaires would force over half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts — and they did it anyway,' said Rep. Brendan F. Boyle, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, in a statement. 'American families simply cannot afford Donald Trump's attacks on Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare.' Hospitals in rural parts of the country are already grappling with cuts to Medicaid, which is available to people with low incomes, and cuts to Medicare could exacerbate their shortfalls. As Republicans muscled the bill through Congress and are now selling it to voters back home, they have been highly critical of how CBO has analyzed the bill. They have also argued that the tax cuts will spur economic growth and pointed to $50 billion in funding for rural hospitals that was included in the package.
