logo
Partisan school board concurrence filed, advances for final Senate consideration

Partisan school board concurrence filed, advances for final Senate consideration

Yahoo22-04-2025

The partisan school board bill overcame an obstacle Tuesday as the Senate motion to dissent from the bill was taken away and a motion to concur put in its place.
A motion to dissent on Senate Bill 287, the partisan school board bill, was filed April 10 as the Senate dissented from House amendments to the bill. On Tuesday, the dissent was rescinded and a concurrence was filed, which means an agreement was reached to the version of the bill passed out of the House, said Rep. Carolyn Jackson, D-Hammond, who was a member of the conference committee for the bill.
The bill was placed on the Senate's calendar Tuesday afternoon for a concurrence vote, but Sen. Gary Byrne, R-Byrneville, passed on discussing and voting on the bill. If the bill doesn't get called for a vote by the Senate before session ends, the bill doesn't advance to the governor's desk, according to legislative rules.
Senate Bill 287, authored by Byrne, Sen. Chris Garten, R-Charlestown, and Sen. Blake Doriot, R-Goshen, would change the school board election process to that of other elections, which would include a primary and general election. In the Senate version, school board candidates would have to declare a party.
The bill was amended in the House Elections and Apportionment committee to reflect House Bill 1230, authored by Rep. J.D. Prescott, R-Union City. Prescott's amendment removed the primary process from the bill and stated that in the general election a school board candidate can choose to be listed as a Republican, Democrat, independent or nonpartisan.
When the bill was heard by the House, it was amended further to state that if a candidate chooses to be nonpartisan, then a blank space will appear on the ballot where party affiliation would be listed.
If the board member who leaves the board was a Republican or Democrat then a caucus should be held to replace that member, but Independent or nonpartisan candidates can be replaced by the sitting school board members, according to the bill.
In a conference committee Monday, the committee heard an amendment to include language in the vacancy procedure to match that of Senate Bill 366, Byrne said. Senate Bill 366 states that if there's a vacancy on a school board due to the death of a school board member, then the remaining school board members shall meet and pick someone to fill the vacancy.
But, because the concurrence was filed, Jackson said the amendment brought up in the conference committee won't be applicable to the bill.
Sen. J.D. Ford, D-Indianapolis, said Monday the legislature was about to pass a 'monumental' bill by allowing politics to dictate school board races. Candidates can put their political affiliation on their campaign signage, he said.
'We should scrap this and move on to something else,' Ford said. 'Once we open the door on this we can't close it.'
Democratic legislators opposed the original and amended bill, Jackson said.
'I don't like the bill, I really don't,' Jackson said. 'There's not enough (Democrats) to kill the bill.'
After the bill passed both chambers of the legislature, Indiana School Boards Association executive director Terry Spradlin issued a statement that the organization's longstanding position has been for school board races to remain nonpartisan.
'While the Indiana General Assembly has now voted to make school board elections partisan, once elected, ISBA will encourage school board members to leave politics at the board room door,' Spradlin said. 'School board members should also conduct themselves in a manner that models effective board governance practices regardless of party affiliation.'
Juanita Albright, president of the Hamilton Southeastern Schools Board of Trustees, testified when the bill was heard in the House Elections and Apportionment committee that she supports the bill because it gives voters, who don't always research candidates, more information about who is on the ballot.
'A school board is inherently political, whether we want to admit it or not,' Albright said.
akukulka@chicagotribune.com

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Donald Trump Weighs In on 'Civil War' Concerns
Donald Trump Weighs In on 'Civil War' Concerns

Newsweek

time30 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Donald Trump Weighs In on 'Civil War' Concerns

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. On Monday, President Donald Trump was asked about Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom's remarks that his Republican administration wants "civil war on the streets" amid ongoing protests against raids by Los Angeles Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The president was asked by a reporter, "What do you make of the fact that [Newsom] says you want a civil war?" Trump responded, "No, it's the opposite. I don't want a civil war. Civil war would happen if you left it to people like him." REPORTER: Gavin Newsom says you want a Civil War. TRUMP: "It's just the opposite, I don't want a Civil War. Civil War would happen if you left it to people like him." — Breaking911 (@Breaking911) June 9, 2025 This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.

Newsom blasts Trump's arrest threat as ‘unmistakable step toward authoritarianism'
Newsom blasts Trump's arrest threat as ‘unmistakable step toward authoritarianism'

San Francisco Chronicle​

time31 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Newsom blasts Trump's arrest threat as ‘unmistakable step toward authoritarianism'

President Donald Trump on Monday endorsed the idea of arresting California Gov. Gavin Newsom over the state's resistance to federal immigration enforcement efforts in Los Angeles, intensifying a clash that has already drawn legal challenges and fierce rebukes from Democratic leaders. 'I would do it if I were Tom,' Trump said, referring to Tom Homan, his border czar, who over the weekend suggested that state and local officials, including Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, could face arrest if they interfered with immigration raids. 'I think it's great. Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing,' Trump added. Trump's remarks signal a sharp escalation in the administration's crackdown on sanctuary jurisdictions and a willingness to target political opponents in unprecedented ways. Newsom responded swiftly, calling Trump's words a chilling attack on American democratic norms. 'The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor,' Newsom wrote on X. 'This is a day I hoped I would never see in America. I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' Tensions escalated sharply after Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles following days of civil unrest related to Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. The deployment marked the first time a president has federalized a state's National Guard without the governor's consent since 1965. Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced plans to sue Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, alleging the deployment was unlawful. 'Federalizing the California National Guard is an abuse of the President's authority under the law,' Bonta said at a press conference. 'There is no invasion. There is no rebellion.' Meanwhile, David Huerta, president of SEIU California, was charged with felony conspiracy to impede an officer after his arrest during the L.A. protests. Despite the furor, legal experts note that Homan lacks the authority to arrest elected officials, and his role remains advisory. Still, Trump's rhetoric has raised alarms among critics who view his comments as part of a broader pattern of undermining democratic institutions. 'This is a preview of things to come,' Newsom warned in an interview with Brian Taylor Cohen that he shared on social media. 'This isn't about L.A., per se,' the Democratic governor added. 'It's about us today, it's about you, everyone watching tomorrow. This guy is unhinged. Trump is unhinged right now, and this is just another proof point of that.' At a news conference held by lawmakers in Sacramento to discuss the protests in Los Angeles, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, said Trump's threat to arrest Newsom is a 'direct assault on democracy and an insult to every Californian.'

Can the President Activate a State's National Guard?
Can the President Activate a State's National Guard?

Yahoo

time34 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Can the President Activate a State's National Guard?

President Donald Trump's mobilization of the National Guard to quell immigration-related protests in Los Angeles marks a rare—and controversial—exercise of presidential power. Trump's decision to make the deployment against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom is especially unusual. The move marks the first time in 60 years that a President has called up National Guard troops to a state without a request from its governor. Newsom confirmed he didn't ask for the mobilization, saying in a post on X on Sunday that he had formally requested that the Trump Administration rescind what he called an 'unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles county and return them to my command.' The Democratic governor called the move 'a serious breach of state sovereignty,' and told MSNBC that he plans to file a lawsuit against the Administration. The decision to activate the National Guard came as thousands of demonstrators across Los Angeles county over the weekend protested Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids that targeted undocumented immigrants. While the protests had been largely peaceful, some of the demonstrations escalated: Rocks and Molotov cocktails were thrown, cars were vandalized, and law enforcement officials deployed crowd control agents including tear gas, 'flash bang' grenades, and rubber bullets. Read More: Gavin Newsom Says Trump 'Manufactured' Crisis in California, Announces Legal Challenge Over National Guard Order Though National Guard troops are typically controlled by state governors, the President does have the authority to deploy them in certain circumstances, including in response to civil unrest. It's a power that has existed in some form almost as long as the country itself, dating back to 1792, though it has been used only sparingly in the centuries since. The deployment of the National Guard in those instances has usually come at the request of state officials—thought not always. The last time a President mobilized the troops without the governor's consent was in 1965, when then-President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed National Guard troops to Alabama, without a request from the state's governor, in order to protect civil rights activists who were marching from Selma to Montgomery, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Alabama's governor at the time, Democrat George Wallace, didn't want to use state funds to protect the demonstrators. Johnson invoked the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the President to deploy military forces domestically to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or in certain other situations. The Insurrection Act 'is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities,' according to the Brennan Center for Justice. The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in 1992, when then-President George H.W. Bush called up National Guard troops to quell riots in Los Angeles that were sparked by the acquittal of the four white police officers charged in the beating of Rodney King, an unarmed Black man. Then-California Gov. Pete Wilson had requested the federal aid. Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, but he didn't rule out the possibility of doing so in the future. 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection,' Trump said, responding to a reporter's question about whether he was prepared to invoke the law. 'We're not going to let them get away with it.' To mobilize the National Guard troops this weekend, he instead invoked Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which allows for the federal deployment of National Guard forces in limited circumstances, including if 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' The provision states that the President may call the troops 'in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws.' But it also states, 'Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.' The Trump Administration's move sparked controversy, with many Democratic politicians and advocacy organizations blasting the decision. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said in a post on X that deploying National Guard troops 'over the objection of California leaders is an abuse of power and a dangerous escalation.' 'It's what you would see in authoritarian states and it must stop,' she continued. Legal experts also expressed concern over the Trump Administration's actions. 'For the federal government to take over the California National Guard, without the request of the governor, to put down protests is truly chilling,' Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, told the New York Times. Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown University Law Center professor specializing in military justice and national security law, called the move 'alarming' in a post on his website, saying there is a possibility that putting federal authorities on the ground 'will only raise the risk of escalating violence' and that the National Guard's mobilization could be intended as a 'precursor' to justify a more aggressive deployment in the future if it fails. 'The law may well allow President Trump to do what he did Saturday night,' Vladeck wrote. 'But just because something is legal does not mean that it is wise—for the present or future of our Republic.' Contact us at letters@

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