Utah's flag ban: Does it target LGBTQ or promote political neutrality?
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
38 minutes ago
- Newsweek
2024 Election Results Under Scrutiny as Lawsuit Advances
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A legal case questioning the accuracy of the 2024 election is moving forward. The lawsuit, brought by SMART Legislation, the action arm of SMART Elections, a nonpartisan watchdog group, filed the lawsuit over voting discrepancies in Rockland County, New York. Judge Rachel Tanguay of the New York Supreme Court ruled in open court in May that the allegations were serious enough for discovery to proceed. Newsweek has contacted SMART Elections for comment via email. People cast their ballots on the last day of early voting for the general election in Michigan at the Livingston Educational Service Agency in Howell on November 3, 2024. People cast their ballots on the last day of early voting for the general election in Michigan at the Livingston Educational Service Agency in Howell on November 3, 2024. Jeff Kowalsky/AFP via Getty Images Why It Matters The lawsuit could renew debate about the 2024 election, though it won't change the outcome since Congress has certified the results declaring President Donald Trump the winner. It comes amid unconfirmed reports that voting machines were secretly altered before ballots were cast in November's election. The federally accredited testing lab, Pro V&V, that signed off on "significant" changes to ES&S voting machines—which are used in over 40 percent of U.S. counties—"vanished from public view" after the election, according to the Dissent in Bloom Substack. What To Know According to the complaint, more voters have sworn in legal affidavits that they voted for independent U.S. Senate candidate Diane Sare than the Rockland County Board of Elections counted and certified, contradicting those results. The complaint also cited numerous statistical anomalies in the presidential election results. They include multiple districts where hundreds of voters chose the Democratic candidate Kirsten Gillibrand for Senate, but none voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate for president. Max Bonamente, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the author of the Statistics and Analysis of Scientific Data, said in a paper that the 2024 presidential election results were statistically highly unlikely in four of the five towns in Rockland County when compared with 2020 results. What People Are Saying Lulu Friesdat, the founder and executive director of SMART Legislation, said in a statement: "There is clear evidence that the Senate results are incorrect, and there are statistical indications that the presidential results are highly unlikely. "If the results are incorrect, it is a violation of the constitutional rights of each person who voted in the 2024 Rockland County general election. The best way to determine if the results are correct is to examine the paper ballots in a full public, transparent hand recount of all presidential and Senate ballots in Rockland County. We believe it's vitally important, especially in the current environment, to be absolutely confident about the results of the election." Max Bonamente said in a paper on the voting data from Rockland County: "These data would require extreme sociological or political causes for their explanation, and would benefit from further assurances as to their fidelity." Costas Panagopoulos, a professor of political science at Northeastern University, told Newsweek: "Statistical irregularities in elections should always be investigated, but the sources of such inconsistencies, which can include error or miscalculation, are not always nefarious. Still, scrutinizing election results can strengthen confidence in elections. Mistakes can happen. "In this case, the drop-off inconsistencies could reflect the idiosyncratic nature of the 2024 presidential election cycle. Alone, statistical comparisons to previous cycles cannot provide definitive proof of wrongdoing. "In any case, it does not appear that any of these inconsistencies would be sufficient to change the outcomes of any of the elections in question in New York state. That does not mean they should not be scrutinized, and any errors, if verified, should be corrected for the historical record. But there is not necessarily any need to invalidate any of these elections in these jurisdictions." What's Next The lawsuit is seeking a full, hand recount of ballots cast in the presidential and U.S. Senate races in Rockland County. A hearing has been scheduled for September 22.
CNBC
44 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump's 'big beautiful' spending bill could make it harder to claim this low-income tax credit
As Senate Republicans debate President Donald Trump's "big beautiful bill", a lesser-known provision from the House-approved package could make it harder to claim a low-income tax credit. If enacted as written, the House measure in the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" would require precertification of each qualifying child for filers claiming the so-called earned income tax credit, or EITC, starting in 2028. Under current law, taxpayers claim the EITC on their tax return — including Schedule EIC for qualifying children. The provision aims to "avoid duplicative and other erroneous claims," according to the bill's text. But policy experts say the new rules would burden eligible filers, who may forgo the EITC as a result. The measure could also delay tax refunds for those filers, particularly amid IRS cutbacks, experts say. More from Personal Finance:Job market is 'trash' right now, career coach says — here's whyWhat a 'revenge tax' in Trump's spending bill could mean for investorsWhat Trump's plan to slash Pell Grant to lowest level in a decade means for you "You're going to flood the IRS with all these [EITC] documents," said Janet Holtzblatt, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. "It's just not clear how they're going to process all this information." Holtzblatt, who has pushed to simplify the EITC for decades, wrote a critique of the proposed precertification last week. "This is not a new idea, but was previously considered, studied and rejected for very good reasons," Greg Leiserson, a senior fellow at the Tax Law Center at New York University Law, wrote about the proposal in late May. Studies during the George W. Bush administration found an EITC precertification process reduced EITC claims for eligible filers, Leiserson wrote. During the study, precertification also yielded a lower return on investment compared to existing EITC enforcement, such as audits, he wrote. One of the key benefits of the EITC is the tax break is "refundable," meaning you can still claim the credit and get a refund with zero taxes owed. That's valuable for lower earners who don't have a tax bill, experts say. To qualify, you need "earned income," or wages from work. The income phase-outs depend on your "qualifying children," based on four IRS tests. "Eligibility is complicated," and residency requirements for qualifying children often cause errors, said Holtzblatt with the Tax Policy Center. For 2025, the tax break is worth up to $8,046 for eligible families. You can claim the maximum EITC with adjusted gross income up to $61,555 for single filers and $68,675 for married couples filing jointly. These phase-outs apply to families with three or more children. As of December 2024, about 23 million workers received the EITC for tax year 2022, according to the IRS. But 1 in 5 eligible taxpayers don't claim the tax break, the agency estimates. Nine Democratic Senators last week voiced concerns about the House-approved EITC changes in a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. If enacted, the updates would "further complicate the EITC's existing challenges and make it more difficult to claim," the lawmakers wrote. Higher earners are more likely to face an audit, but EITC claimants have a 5.5 times higher audit rate than the rest of U.S. filers, partly due to improper payments, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. The proposed EITC change, among other House provisions, still need Senate approval, and it's unclear how the measure could change. However, under the reconciliation process, Senate Republicans only need a simple majority to advance the bill.
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
'One Big Beautiful Bill' harms more than it helps, says Miami archbishop
The 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' passed in the U.S. House and is now in the Senate. Senators have a critical opportunity to reshape or amend some of the bill's provisions before moving it forward. Doing so is imperative, as the bill passed by the House contains real and substantial threats to the promotion of the common good and the protection of human life and dignity. Many across the political spectrum object to the bill's enormous spending, arguing it will add to the already unsustainable national debt. One of the most problematic areas is its doubling down on an enforcement-only approach to immigration, which needlessly adds to this debt. This sweeping legislation allocates $24 billion for immigration enforcement and $45 billion for detention — including the detention of families — a 400% increase from current funding levels, according to Dominican Life USA, which has broken down the immigration costs. It also proposes $100 million to expedite the removal of unaccompanied children. Additionally, the bill would impose prohibitive fees on immigrant families: $8,500 for family reunification with an unaccompanied child, $1,000 to request asylum, which does not exist now, and $550 for a work permit that must be renewed every six months. These draconian measures undermine both financial logic and moral responsibility. The administration has already effectively regained control of the border and is aggressively removing and deporting 'bad actors' — those who commit serious felonies after entering the country. However, as employers in agriculture, healthcare and service industries can attest, the majority of immigrants are honest, hardworking individuals who are simply seeking a better future for their families. Most undocumented immigrants are not criminals. Many have temporary protections, such as TPS (Temporary Protected Status), parole, or pending asylum applications. Some — including Haitians, Cubans, Venezuelans and Nicaraguans — entered under special humanitarian visas. Others arrived legally on student or visitor visas and later fell out of status by overstaying their visas. DREAMers, brought to the U.S. as children, have only been granted 'deferred departure' and still have no pathway to legal permanent residence. Rather than spend billions on mass deportation efforts targeting people who are already contributing positively to our nation, it would be both more financially prudent and morally just to halt enforcement-only policies and expand legal pathways to permanent status for non-criminal immigrants. The U.S. is currently facing labor shortages in many industries, including healthcare, services and agriculture. Removing immigrant workers will only worsen these shortages. While the administration enforces the laws, Congress makes the laws — and has the power to change them. Congress could revise the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to be less expensive, more economically advantageous and better aligned with our values by eliminating wasteful spending on enforcement and including a stay on deportations of non-criminal immigrants. Otherwise, this legislation will fund a mass deportation campaign that could tear apart families, disrupt industrie, and undermine communities. Long-term residents with U.S.-citizen children — people who work, pay taxes and enrich our culture — will be forced out. That does not serve the long-term interests or moral foundations of our country. Thomas Wenski is the archbishop of Miami.
