House advances bill mandating Oklahoma school cellphone bans to the Senate
Rep. Chad Caldwell, R-Enid, is the author of a bill that passed through the House Thursday requiring public schools to ban students from using cellphones and other devices while on campus. Caldwell is pictured leading a House education appropriations subcommittee budget hearing on Jan. 29 in the House chamber of the state Capitol. (Photo by Nuria Martinez-Keel/Oklahoma Voice)
OKLAHOMA CITY — The Oklahoma House on Thursday overwhelmingly approved its first bill of the session, a measure that would require public schools to ban students from using cellphones and smart watches while on campus.
House Republicans and Democrats voted 82-9 Thursday to advance House Bill 1276, authored by Rep. Chad Caldwell, R-Enid, to the Senate. Passing a cellphone bill is a priority of House leadership and the Governor's Office for this session.
The bill would require school districts to implement policies prohibiting the use of cellphones and other devices on campus before the beginning of the next school year. Districts can choose to allow cellphone use, but all adopted policies would be subject to annual renewal.
The legislation allows for exceptions to the policy for medical issues documented by a licensed professional where a cellphone would be needed for support.
House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, said in a statement he is 'proud that our caucus identified this as a priority before session and moved quickly to make this happen.'
Democratic representatives, including Reps. Andy Fugate of Oklahoma City and Trish Ranson of Stillwater, asked Caldwell if districts can choose to carve out time for device use for educational purposes or at certain times. While Caldwell said he doesn't think districts should, he said they do have the ability to do this.
One of nine Republicans voting against the legislation, Rep. Mark Lepak of Claremore said while he agreed with the policy, it was a hard piece of legislation for him to vote for or against.
He said school boards already have the power to pass restrictions on cellphone usage, and questioned if this bill was designed 'to take the heat off of them.'
He questioned Caldwell on how the purchase of storage spaces for devices would be funded as well as who would be responsible for lost or damaged property.
Caldwell said the districts would determine this at the local level in their policies.
He said the bill allows for school districts to choose how to enforce and limit cellphone use, whether that be leaving devices in lockers or purchasing pouches for storage. The bill does not require districts to store student devices, there is currently no funding for storing devices in this legislation.
He said this legislation will require a 'culture change' from students and parents on how cellphones are used.
'We've all become quite attached to these little supercomputers that we carry around in our pockets. But again, the data is so abundantly clear,' Caldwell said. 'We know it's the right thing, and sometimes doing the right thing isn't always easy. But yeah, I've heard districts that say, 'Hey, would you just tell us, not give us the choice? And that way I can point the blame to you guys.' I get blamed for a lot of stuff out of this building, so I'll go ahead and be glad to take the blame on this one.'
A similar bill is being considered in the Senate. It narrowly passed through the Senate Education Committee Tuesday with a 7-5 vote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
18 minutes ago
- New York Post
Lefty lawmakers' war on cows is another senseless progressive beef with upstate farmers
Progressive legislators want to dictate Upstate cow populations, because of course they know better than anyone who actually lives anywhere near a dairy farm. Is it any wonder why Upstaters hate New York City, at least the jerks we elect? Animal-rights obsessive Manhattan Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal has teamed-up with Brooklyn Democratic Socialist state Sen. Jabari Brisport to push a limit of 700 cows per farm — a move that would slam an important industry and not help the environment one whit. Advertisement The barns for younger cows and calves on Stein Farm in Le Roy, New York, outside of Rochester pictured on November 2, 2022. Annie Wermiel/NY Post The two Democrats claim that their bill protects the environment and preserves small, family-owned farms from becoming corporate 'factory farms.' Except upstate farmers face no such threat and want nothing to do with these lawmakers and the big-city condescension. Advertisement 'Placing a cap on the number of cows on a dairy farm means placing a cap on growth and success,' argues the New York Farm Bureau. Nor did Rosenthal or Brisport visit any actual farming communities before moving to 'fix' them: Their measure relies on a 2024 report from Food & Water Watch, an offshoot of Ralph Nader's lefty Public Citizen funded by a slew of progressive charities. The lefty legislators plainly also know nothing of the state Department of Environmental Conservation's work in ensuring dairy farms adhere to the nation's most stringent standards and land-management practices. Sign at North Harbor Dairy farm reading 'Make Milk Great Again,' featuring a cow designed in the style of the American flag. Spectrum News 1 Advertisement But they surely do know that countless urban 'environmentalists' are convinced that cow flatulence is a prime cause of global warming. Gov. Kathy Hochul reportedly calls the measure 'insane' and no doubt annoyed that the Rosenthal-Brisport fantasy comes as Great Lakes Cheese, Fairlife and Chobani are investing billions in upstate dairy communities. So the bill won't become law this year — but if progressives keep growing their majorities in the Legislature, anything goes: Knowing nothing never stops the progs from imposing their ideas whenever they have the power. Advertisement The result, of course, would simply be forcing consumers to get more milk from producers in Midwest states without such nutty laws — continuing the long hollowing-out of Upstate. Hmm: That population loss would further boost progressives' power in the Legislature; they'll be running everything by the time they completely destroy the entire state.
San Francisco Chronicle
22 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump vs. Newsom an ugly skirmish that benefits both politicians
On Sunday, Gov. Gavin Newsom called President Donald Trump a 'dictator.' On Monday, Trump called for Newsom's arrest. On Tuesday, Newsom's office posted a mocking video comparing Trump to one of the most evil Star Wars villains. After starting the year with remarkable civility working together in the wake of the Los Angeles wildfires, the president and the governor of the country's most populous state are now locked in a very public battle that, while acrimonious, offers political opportunities for both men. After months of increasing tension, Trump started the latest fight on Saturday night when he used protests over his immigration crackdown as justification to send the National Guard into Los Angeles over the governor's objections. The escalating civil unrest, spurred by the deployment, has shifted the national conversation from Trump's foundering budget proposal and provided him an opportunity to rip one of his favorite foils: California. Rob Stutzman, a California-based Republican political consultant who has long been critical of Trump, said he thinks the president deployed the National Guard to distract from the economic fallout from his tariffs and his embarrassing public fight with Elon Musk. He said the move has focused the nation on immigration. 'This is a fight directly instigated by the White House,' Stutzman said. 'Trump was desperate.' After many Democrats had criticized him for being too cozy with MAGA-world, the situation has a potential upside for Newsom, too. The rift with Trump has elevated him into the national spotlight as the Democrat leading the charge against a president reviled by his opponents. In January, after Trump was sworn in, Newsom kept his rhetoric about Trump measured, even as other Democrats excoriated the president as a threat to democracy. In the days after his inauguration, Newsom said Trump was cooperating with fire recovery efforts and praised the president for his work with California during the height of the COVID pandemic. 'We had a partner, not a sparring partner, a working partner, in President Trump during those years,' he told reporters. 'I'm firmly focused on building that partnership.' In need of assistance from the president, Newsom held news conferences amid the rubble in Los Angeles and praised Trump for cooperating with the state to clean up the debris. But as the year wore on, Newsom became more and more critical. He made some especially fiery remarks in April when he sued over the president's tariffs. 'Donald Trump is betraying the people of the Central Valley,' Newsom said, standing in front of a warehouse at a Central Valley farm where he announced the lawsuit. 'He is betraying the people that supported him.' Over the weekend, Newsom's rhetoric against the president escalated further. Trump, who has always criticized Newsom and often calls him names, has also escalated his threats against the governor, including calling for him to be arrested. 'He's doing a bad job,' Trump said of Newsom at the White House on Tuesday. Trump criticized Newsom for not doing enough to quell the protests, and echoed his past blame of the governor for the wildfires that ravaged Los Angeles at the start of the year. In many ways, the situation is politically advantageous to both men, Stutzman said. The president's arrest threat, in particular, could help the governor. 'That's almost like a gift to Newsom,' Stutzman said. 'Newsom has no choice but to fully engage it, but at the same time it becomes the opportunity for him to legitimately be elevated within his party as the guy on the frontlines fighting Trump.' The optics of the protests, with images of cars burning and foreign flags flying in the streets, have played to Trump's advantage so far, said Gabriel Lenz, a political science professor at UC Berkeley. But he noted that if the administration continues to aggressively pursue immigration raids in workplaces and target people without criminal history, that could backfire for Trump. It remains to be seen how the drama in Los Angeles will help or hurt either politician. 'There's a real opportunity to win that public opinion battle,' he said.
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
House Republicans tee up tweaks to Trump megabill
House Republican leaders on Tuesday teed up changes to the 'big, beautiful bill' of President Trump's tax cut and spending priorities that are slated to come up for a vote of the full chamber this week. The tweaks come after the Senate parliamentarian reviewed the sprawling package and identified provisions that do not comply with the upper chamber's procedural requirements for using the budget reconciliation process, which allows Republicans to circumvent a Democratic filibuster and approve the legislation by simple majority. Leaving the language in the bill risks losing the ability to pass the bill under budget reconciliation. The parliamentarian's process is known as the 'Byrd bath.' One House Republican described the House tweaks as preventing 'fatalities' from remaining in the bill when it hits the Senate. 'There are a small number, I mean, could count them on one hand, of fatalities that have been identified by the parliamentarian,' the GOP lawmaker said. 'Of course we can't transmit the bill with fatalities so those fatalities will be cured through a rule this week.' While the lower chamber is planning to strip those terms from the bill, party leaders are not giving up on the policy: House Minority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said Senate Republicans will fight for the provisions when the bill hits the floor. 'We disagree; ultimately we're gonna try it again on the Senate floor,' Scalise told reporters. '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.' The full House will vote on approving those changes this week, with the adjustments tacked on to a 'rule' resolution — a procedural measure that governs debate for legislation. The rule making the fixes to the megabill will also tee up the terms of debate for unrelated legislation to claw back $9.4 billion in funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. It advanced out of the Rules Committee on a party-line, 8-4 vote Tuesday evening. Rule resolutions are typically passed along party lines and are tests of party loyalty, but Republicans sometimes buck leadership and vote against the procedural rules in protest of process or policy. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) — one of two House Republicans who voted no on the bill when it passed the Hoise last month — voiced his disapproval of making the changes to the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' via a rule in a post on X. 'Nancy Pelosi once said the House needed to vote for a bill to find out what was in it. Today @SpeakerJohnson said 'hold my beer.' He just announced he's using the Rules Committee to change the text of the Big Beautiful Bill a week after we voted on it!' Massie said. While House Republicans have already passed the bill in the lower chamber they have not officially transmitted it to the Senate — enabling them to make the fixes via the rule mechanism. Republicans are using the special budget reconciliation to push the megabill through Congress while avoiding the Senate's 60-vote cloture rule, enabling them to pass the bill on party lines without support from Democrats. The tweaks in the House come as party leaders are holding out hope that they can enact the package by July 4, which was their self-imposed deadline. Trump, however, opened the door to the process blowing past that timeline, saying 'if takes a little longer, that's okay.'
