logo
Utah's flag ban: Does it target LGBTQ or promote political neutrality?

Utah's flag ban: Does it target LGBTQ or promote political neutrality?

Yahoo01-03-2025

A Utah bill banning most flags in public school classrooms and government buildings will advance to a Senate vote one year after lawmakers rejected a similar bill inserted during the final hours of the session.
Members of the Senate Education Committee approved HB77, Flag Display Amendments, along party lines on Friday after hearing from a number of constituents who opposed the bill which they said targeted the rainbow, or pride, flag that represents LGBTQ social movements.
Bill sponsor Rep. Trevor Lee, R-Layton, did not mention the pride flag, framing the resurrected proposal as an effort to achieve 'political neutrality' in the classroom so that students can focus on learning.
'We want to make sure that if there is something that's considered political, or makes someone feel uncomfortable, that they shouldn't have to worry about the government pushing and enforcing or pushing any type of ideology on anyone,' Lee told the committee.
Lee's bill originally applied only to classrooms and included a new cause of action for parents to sue schools that were out of compliance. The lawsuit provision was removed and the scope of the bill was expanded during its presentation to the House Education Committee earlier this month.
In its current form, the bill would prohibit government entities and public school employees acting within their 'official duties' from displaying a flag in or on government property unless the flag is one of a dozen exceptions.
Teachers in their classrooms, and cities, counties or the state on government grounds, would only be allowed to 'place a flag in a prominent location ... where the flag is easily visible' if the flag is one of the following:
United States flag.
Utah state flag.
Municipal flag.
Military flag.
Tribal flag.
Country flag.
Officially licensed public university flag.
Official public school flag.
Olympic flag.
The bill clarifies that historical state and national flags may be temporarily displayed for educational purposes and that flags temporarily displayed by an organization authorized to use public schools would be allowed. Altered versions of the permitted flags would not be allowed.
The bill only applies to actual flags, not to depictions of flags, lapel pins or signs. An amendment to the bill reaffirmed that nothing in the bill removes a school's 'obligation to protect all students from discrimination.'
The state auditor would be tasked with establishing a process to investigate alleged violations of the bill. The bill would require the auditor to notify government entities of each allegation and of each allegation the auditor considers substantive.
If a government entity or school district fails to resolve the violation within 30 days, there will be a fine of $500 per violation per day.
Sen. Kathleen Riebe, D-Cottonwood Heights, questioned why the Legislature should reconsider a bill that would override local control and prevent personalized policies at the district level.
'This bill would create a lot of tension, a lot of struggles,' said Riebe, an educator in the Granite School District. 'I just really don't understand why we can't trust our local school districts to work with their teachers to make sure that what's being presented in their schools is appropriate for whatever district they're working in.'
Multiple individuals who gave public comment, including Equality Utah policy director Marina Lowe, several educators and a representative of the Utah League of Cities and Towns spoke against the bill on constitutional grounds, saying that it violated municipalities' First Amendment rights.
Michael Curtis, from the state's Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, told the committee that Utah court precedent supports the ability for legislators to restrict the speech of political subdivisions and to choose which private speech it promotes.
Corinne Johnson of Utah Parents United argued that Lee's bill is actually necessary to protect students' rights to have a nonpartisan and nonsectarian education.
'That is why we are here today, to restore constitutional protections to Utah classrooms and ensure that students don't have one political agenda prioritized over another in the classroom,' Johnson said.
A long line of constituents took issue with Sen. Heidi Balderree, R-Saratoga Springs, referring to certain unnamed flags in classrooms as 'propaganda.' One commenter, Charlotte Weber, said that pride flags are not political because the existence of individuals identifying as LGBTQ is not political.
'This flag represents a minority of people who are bullied and marginalized and downtrodden and this tells those people that they are welcome,' Weber said. 'Trying to ban this flag specifically sends exactly the opposite message.'
With one week left in the 2025 legislative session, HB77 will now be added to the queue to receive a floor vote in the Senate.
During the final hours of the 2024 session, a procedural trick was used to vote on a similar bill without having passed through the regular committee process.
The move split the Republican supermajority in the Senate, leading to the potentially popular proposal failing in a 20-9 vote.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

House GOP approves ‘technical changes' to Trump agenda bill
House GOP approves ‘technical changes' to Trump agenda bill

The Hill

time37 minutes ago

  • The Hill

House GOP approves ‘technical changes' to Trump agenda bill

House Republicans on Wednesday greenlit a series of 'technical changes' to the party's tax cut and spending package, removing language that would have thrown their effort off course in the Senate. The chamber approved the tweaks — which were tucked inside a procedural rule for a separate measure — in a 213-207 vote, weeks after Republicans passed the sprawling package full of President Trump's legislative priorities. The adopted rule also tees up a final vote on the White House's bill to claw back $9.4 billion in federal spending. House GOP leaders moved to make the changes after the Senate parliamentarian scrubbed through the legislation — a procedure known as the 'Byrd bath' — and identified provisions and language that do not comply with the strict rules for the budget reconciliation process, which the GOP trifecta is using to circumvent a Democratic filibuster in the Senate and approve the bill by a simple majority. Leaving the legislation as it was risked the parliamentarian ruling that it was not compliant, which would have resulted in the threshold for passage in the Senate increasing from a simple majority to 60 votes — allowing Democratic opposition to block it. The changes to the Trump agenda bill — officially titled the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act — pertain to defense funding, energy policy and changes to Medicaid. For defense, Republicans nixed $2 billion for the enhancement of military intelligence programs; $500 million for the development, procurement and integration of maritime mines; and $62 million to convert Ohio-class submarine tubes to accept additional missiles. On the energy front, meanwhile, the changes removed a provision that would have reinstated leases for a proposed copper and nickel mine that had been renewed under the first Trump administration but revoked under Biden. The mine would have been located near an area known as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, a nature preserve that contains canoe routes and species including black bears, moose and foxes. While leaders moved to strike some portions of the bill, they still plan to fight for those provisions when the package hits the Senate floor. 'We disagree; ultimately we're going to try it again on the Senate floor,' House Majority Leadere Steve Scalise (R-La.) said Tuesday. ' We disagree with the parliamentarian. … But you can't take the risk on any of them. You cannot take the risk because if any one of them is ruled on the Senate floor to be fatal, it's a 60-vote bill. The whole bill is a 60-vote bill — you can't take that risk.' With the changes made, the House is now expected to formally send the package to the Senate, where Republicans are mapping out their own changes to the behemoth bill. Some GOP senators want to decrease the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, others are pushing to increase the spending cuts in the bill, and a subset are pressing for a smaller rollback of the green energy tax credits that Democrats approved in 2022. Any changes to the House bill in the Senate, however, risks party leadership losing support in the lower chamber, which will have to approve the Senate's tweaks before the bill can head to Trump's desk for signature. Party leaders are still hoping to enact the package by July 4, but that timeline is coming into serious question as Republicans remain at odds over a series of high-stakes issues. Rachel Frazin contributed.

Hegseth takes fire from Republicans at heated Senate hearing
Hegseth takes fire from Republicans at heated Senate hearing

The Hill

time42 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Hegseth takes fire from Republicans at heated Senate hearing

Republican senators came out firing during Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's hearing on Wednesday before the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on armed forces. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) immediately pressed Hegseth over the Russia-Ukraine war, with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) driving home the point later in the hearing; Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the top Senate appropriator, scolded the Pentagon's delays with budget information; and Sen. Lisa Murkowski closed out the hearing by questioning the administration's focus on Greenland in its Arctic strategy. McConnell, one of three Republicans who opposed Hegseth's confirmation, gaveled in the hearing by calling out the Trump administration for what he views as a flat base-line defense budget. He then launched into strong warnings against the U.S. cozying up to Russia in its bid to end its war in Ukraine. McConnell said Washington's allies are 'wondering whether we're in the middle of brokering what appears to be allowing the Russians to define victory. I think victory is defined by the people who have to live there — the Ukrainians.' The former Senate majority leader who now chairs the subcommittee, McConnell asked Hegseth which side he wanted to win the war. The Defense chief said the Trump administration wanted the killing to end but would not choose a side. 'America's reputation is on the line,' McConnell said. 'Will we defend Democratic allies against authoritarian aggressors?' Later in the hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan 'Razin' Caine Caine if Russian President Vladimir Putin is going to stop at Ukraine. 'I don't believe he is,' Caine replied. Hegseth, meanwhile, said it 'remains to be seen. Graham fired back, referring to his previous allusion to appeasement of Adolph Hitler: 'Well, he says he's not. This is the '30s all over. It doesn't remain to be seen.' The line of questioning laid bare the ideological divide within the GOP as to how the U.S. should confront Russia, seen by defense hawks as a global threat that must be countered with military assistance to prop up Ukraine and assert U.S. force in the European theater. But many in the Trump administration, including Hegseth, have taken a more ambivalent tone, arguing for an America First approach that could see American troops rotated out of bases in Europe and an end to the flow of military aid from Washington to Kyiv. 'We don't want a headline at the end of this conflict that says Russia wins and America loses,' McConnell told Hegseth. The hearing had a far more adversarial tone compared to Hegseth's appearance before the House Appropriations defense subcommittee a day prior, in which the Pentagon chief emerged largely unscathed, particularly at the hands of GOP members. Democratic and Republican senators grilled Hegseth over a sparsely outlined defense budget for next fiscal year, echoing rare bipartisan criticism during the House hearing. Collins reprimanded the Pentagon for being 'unacceptably slow' in submitting a detailed Pentagon spending request for the fiscal year 2026. Congress is waiting on the information as the GOP struggles to agree on Trump's reconciliation package. She also told Hegseth that Trump's budget request represented a reduction in buying power compared to the 2025 military budget, when inflation is taken into account, but suggested the Senate might correct that. McConnell earlier was also critical of the administration's defense spending plan, pushing back at Hegseth's argument that the U.S. would be making the largest investment in the military in 20 years via Trump's reconciliation package. McConnell said putting funneling defense dollars into that package while declining to increase military spending in the regular budget 'may well end up functioning as a shell game to avoid making the most significant annual investments that we spent years urging the Biden administration to make.' There was also no shortage of criticism from the panel's Democrats. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), bashed the Pentagon for cutting military medical research while spending $45 million for a grand military parade marking the Army's 250th birthday, set for Saturday 'This is not consistent with what the men and women in uniform deserve,' Durbin said. Others, including Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) berated Hegseth for the Trump administration's decision to send National Guard troops and active-duty Marines into Los Angeles this week, calling the actions a wildly out-of-proportion response to sometimes violent protests against Trump's escalating immigration crackdowns. 'Threatening to use our own troops on our own citizens at such scale is unprecedented, it is unconstitutional, and it is downright un-American,' Murray said, noting that the actions were undermining the readiness of the U.S. military. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) pressed Hegseth to reveal the cost or timeline of refurbishing Trump's luxury jet from the Qatari government, meant to become Air Force One. 'You have signed a contract with a company to reconfigure the Qatari aircraft. What is the price of that contract?' Reed asked. Hegseth replied that the information 'cannot be revealed in this setting,' prompting Reed to fire back. 'Why can't it be revealed? This is the appropriation committee of the United States Senate. We appropriate the money that you will spend,' Reed said.

State Senators Overwhelmingly Vote to Raise Car Dealership Fees 488%
State Senators Overwhelmingly Vote to Raise Car Dealership Fees 488%

Miami Herald

time44 minutes ago

  • Miami Herald

State Senators Overwhelmingly Vote to Raise Car Dealership Fees 488%

California's state Senate has approved legislation allowing car dealers to charge buyers up to 1% of a vehicle's purchase price in document processing fees, with a $500 cap. This $500 limit represents an increase of nearly 500% from the current cap of $85, and the average starting price of a new car in May was $48,656, Cox Automotive reports. The bill passed with only one Senator voting against it, and its supporters, including California's New Car Dealers Association, say the fee is necessary since the $85 cap hasn't kept pace with the state's rising business costs over the decades. Processing paperwork that the added costs would help pay for includes loan documents, fraud protection forms, and Department of Motor Vehicles registration. Anthony Samson, the California New Car Dealers Association's lobbyist, said in April that other businesses can recoup similar costs through service charges, but dealers can't. "If we believed we could simply recover our costs and the price of the vehicle, I assure you that we would not be here today asking for your support on this measure," Samson said, according to Cal Matters. However, Senator Dave Cortese said he's working with the California New Car Dealers Association to lower the fee's ceiling when it's heard in the Assembly. Senator Henry Stern was the only Senator who voted against the bill, noting he feels that car sellers have undermined the state's efforts to protect consumers and the environment with actions like lobbying for the U.S. Senate to pass federal legislation blocking California's electric vehicle mandates. "The car dealers haven't earned the trust to justify this major increase in junk fees," Stern said, according to Cal Matters. Ray Shefska, CarEdge Co-Founder, added that "This bill reinforces that in America, whether it be national, state, or local, we have the best politicians money can buy. When things are already barely affordable, let's by all means make it even more difficult for people buying cars in California." The California New Car Dealers Association has donated $2.9 million to the state's lawmakers since 2015, according to Digital Democracy's database. One California Senator, Carolyn Menjivar, didn't vote on Tuesday but stated: "If we're looking to help everyday Californians with affordability, why are we looking at helping an industry that is making a healthy profit?" California is one of the most expensive states to buy a car since it charges the highest sales tax rate at 7.25% and imposes significant registration fees. The document processing fees vote occurred amid reports of auto dealers using incentive strategies to sustain profits without raising vehicle prices in reaction to Trump's tariffs. State government vehicle purchases are exempt from the document charge. House Assembly members still have to vote on the car dealer fees bill before it heads to California's Governor for approval or veto. If the House Assembly approves the legislation in its current form, a $500 cap could increase Governor Newsom's chances of vetoing it. Florida has the highest car dealer document fees in the U.S., with its $999 cap, followed by Virginia at $799, and Colorado registering third at $699. Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

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