Indiana partisan school board bill passes House
The Indiana House passed a bill Monday that would make school board races partisan, but it will be sent back to the Senate for consideration because it was amended in the House.
Senate Bill 287, authored by Sen. Gary Byrne, R-Byrneville, 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. The school board candidates would have to declare a party.
In the House Elections and Apportionment committee last week, the bill was amended 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.
Prescott, who serves on the House Elections and Apportionment committee, said the amended bill outlines the process for addressing a school board vacancy. 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, he said.
Prescott's amendment maintained the original bill's requirement that school board members be paid up to 10% of the lowest starting salary of a teacher employed in the district, which would shift the current $2,000 payment.
When the House initially heard the bill, Prescott amended the bill further to state that if a school board candidate chooses to be nonpartisan, there will be a blank space next to their name where party affiliation would be listed.
School board members oversee the district's budget, hire personnel, and approve curriculum, Prescott said.
'By disclosing to the voters the party affiliation of school board candidates, this information will help voters decide which candidate best aligns with their values,' Prescott said. 'This change would also help drive up voter turnout on school board elections.'
State Rep. Chuck Moseley, D-Portage, said he previously served 9 years on a school board, and during that time he and the other members kept politics out of governing the district.
'We had a responsibility to the parents of those kids that we wouldn't interject our political thoughts and ideology into school board decision(s) because, quite frankly, it didn't matter whether mom and dad was a Republican or whether mom and dad was a Democrat, we were supposed to be there to make the best decisions for the tax dollars that they invested in their kids' education,' Moseley said.
Moseley said infusing politics into schools 'is simply foolish.'
'This bill directly inserts politics into our education system. In no way, shape or form should it matter if someone's a Democrat or Republican, or anything in between, when it comes to the integrity of educating our students of our state. School board members should be elected on merit, expertise and their commitment to our students — not their allegiance to a political party,' Moseley said.
State Rep. Vernon Smith, D-Gary, said research on partisan school boards has found that school districts see an increase in teacher turnover, less experienced teachers, and a negative impact on non-white school board candidates.
'Partisan school boards insert more division into our community. Voters will be encouraged to choose a candidate based on a letter next to their name instead of their platform. I want my local school board to be focused on our children, not on a party agenda,' Smith said.
State Rep. Tonya Pfaff, D-Terre Haute, said the bill would go against the federal Hatch Act, which prohibits federal government, as well as some state and local government employees from running in a partisan election.
'Our school boards should be focused on student success, not party politics,' Pfaff said.
State Rep. Kyle Miller, D-Fort Wayne, said the bill will create 'lazy voters' and 'lazy candidates.' Prescott said the school board candidate's political affiliation should be 'the starting point not the ending point' and voters should continue to do their research on candidates.
State Rep. Sheila Klinker, D-Lafayette, said she was a teacher for nearly 35 years, and she never knew the political leanings of the school board members in her district. Since the bill was proposed, Klinker said she's heard from her constituents and determined that it 'is not popular.'
'I think we are making a big mistake. It may be discouraging people who do not want their politics to be known. We are discouraging some of our folks from running for office on a school board,' Klinker said.
State Rep. Kyle Pierce, R-Anderson, said Prescott 'has done a great job to find a middle ground' because the bill allows a candidate to declare with a major party or as an Independent or nonpartisan.
The bill would align school board elections closer to elections for coroner or surveyor, who have to declare a party, Pierce said.
'Politics shouldn't be this dirty word,' Pierce said. 'The reality is it is just moving the school boards into position with everything else.
State Rep. Hunter Smith, R-Zionsville, said he supports the bill and 'Indiana's parents.' Smith said he's heard from school officials that they 'can find no curricula void of slanted cultural endorsements and ideologies.'
'Over the past decade, Hoosiers have stepped out of the reductive illusion that our political viewpoints are adjacent to but not reflective of our values. If we are honest, we must recognize that our political convictions are reflective of our values,' Smith said.
Rep. Jim Lucas, R-Seymour, said K-12 education receives about 50% of the state's budget and addresses 'serious issues.' Lucas then began listing inaccurate characterizations of the Democratic party but was stopped for speaking out of order.
'This should be probably the easiest vote we take this year, by far,' Lucas said. 'I think it's important that we know who is running for our school boards, making decisions for our children that have been extremely controversial and brought to the forefront.'
The House voted 54-40, with 14 Republicans joining all present 26 Democrats to vote against the bill.
State Representatives Julie Olthoff, R-Crown Point and Hal Slager, R-Schererville, voted against the bill. House Speaker Todd Huston, R-Fishers, who rarely casts a vote on legislation, voted in favor of the bill.
After the vote, Indiana School Boards Association Executive Director Terry Spradlin said in a statement that the organization has fought against the state moving forward with partisan school board elections.
With the legislature's approval, Spradlin said the organization 'will encourage school board members to leave politics at the board room door by working collaboratively' to address the needs of students.
'School board members should also conduct themselves in a manner that models effective board governance practices regardless of party affiliation,' Spradlin said.
Indiana Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Tallian, a former State Senator from Ogden Dunes, said in a statement that legislators received many calls and heard hours of testimony against the bill, but the Republican supermajority 'pushed through this bad bill anyway.'
'Hoosier school board members include community servants and local leaders. They do not wish to be involved in the same partisan politics that consume Washington and Indianapolis,' Tallian said.
'There were no Democratic votes for this dangerous proposal. Even many Republicans voted against this bill in both the House and Senate. Hoosier Democrats understand that our school boards should be focused on improving education and opportunity for our Hoosier kids — not national politics,' Tallian said.
akukulka@post-trib.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Los Angeles Times
20 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Mexican president condemns L.A. violence, calls on Mexicans to act peacefully
MEXICO CITY — As images of chaos in Los Angeles dominated Mexican media, President Claudia Sheinbaum condemned the weekend clashes but refrained from any direct denunciation of Washington's hard-line immigration tactics — while urging Mexican citizens in California to eschew violence. Sheinbaum, who has won widespread acclaim for her deft handling of incendiary pronouncements by President Trump on tariffs, drug smuggling and other issues, again sought to walk a fine line: She called on U.S. authorities to 'respect the human dignity' of 'hard-working' and 'honest' Mexican immigrants, while denouncing unlawful acts. 'Burning patrol cars seems more like an act of provocation than one of resistance,' Sheinbaum said Monday. A day earlier, the president had been more pointed in her critique of U.S. immigration roundups, which have drawn widespread outrage here. 'The immigration phenomenon cannot be dealt with through violence or raids,' Sheinbaum told a crowd Sunday at a hospital ribbon-cutting outside the capital. News reports and social media accounts in Mexico have widely circulated images of U.S. agents in tactical gear facing off against protesters baring Mexican flags. 'We call on the government of the United States to avoid any act of repression and rectify its unjust and arbitrary policy against millions of immigrants,' Gerardo Fernández Noroña, president of the Mexican Senate and a member of Sheinbaum's ruling Morena bloc, told reporters. On the streets in Mexico City, many Mexicans focused not on the protests, but recent raids by immigration agents in Southern California. They assailed what they viewed as unwarranted attacks against compatriots and relatives. 'I have some cousins living in California and they're very worried and frightened about the raids,' said Alejandra Morales, 47, who works in a rehab clinic in the capital. 'They are good people who only seek a better life for their kids. Trump may ruin their lives.' Said Sofía González, 32, a veterinarian: 'I think President Sheinbaum should be very forceful in her protests against Trump. We've had enough of Trump doing crazy things and maltreating Mexicans.' In her comments, Sheinbaum expressed appreciation to Los Angeles for having provided a home for generations of Mexican immigrants and their families. Mexican citizens are the largest immigrant group in the United States, numbering more than 11 million, according to various estimates. Mexican-born immigrants are widely dispersed across the country, though Los Angeles is still seen here as the capital of the Mexican disapora. Los Angeles 'has been generous, and we Mexicans have been generous with this city,' Sheinbaum said. According to the Mexican foreign ministry, 42 Mexican citizens were arrested in the recent raids, 37 men and 5 women. Four had previous removal orders and have already been expelled back to Mexico; two others agreed to return to Mexico voluntarily. Ronald Johnson, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico City, defended the Trump administration crackdown, while also praising Mexico and its people. 'The violent protesters in LA don't represent the Mexican people: dignified and hard-working, that we know and respect,' Johnson wrote in Spanish on X. 'Our actions protect every community and reinforce the rule of law. Mexico is our partner and our nations are profoundly united.' Sheinbaum's reaction to the clashes in Los Angeles is in line with her efforts to avoid disputes with the Trump administration. Her motto has been: 'cooperation, not subjugation.' The president has criticized Trump's mass deportation agenda, but said that Mexico welcomes its deported citizens. To date, Mexican authorities say, deportations from the United States to Mexico have not spiked, despite the Trump administration policies. In recent years, the United States has removed about 200,000 Mexican citizens back to Mexico each year. Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed.


The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jeffries says Trump ‘intentionally' inflaming unrest in Los Angeles
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is hammering President Trump over the clashes in Los Angeles, saying the president is purposefully escalating tensions to distract the country from a volatile economy. Speaking to reporters in the Capitol, Jeffries railed against Trump's aggressive deportation policies and defended the rights of Americans to protest such government actions — if it's done peacefully. He accused Trump of 'fanning flames and inciting things on the ground' to distract from a domestic policy agenda that Jeffries has dubbed 'a failure.' 'Donald Trump is clearly trying to distract from the fact that he has a failed administration,' Jeffries said. The Democratic leader also dismissed Trump's argument that, by intervening in the L.A. immigration protests, he's simply bringing law and order to a city where local officials have failed to do so. Jeffries noted that Trump, for hours, had declined to intervene on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters attacked law enforcers at the U.S. Capitol in an effort to block the certification of Trump's election defeat a few months earlier. In January, Trump pardoned roughly 1,500 of the rioters — a move that, according to Jeffries, gives Trump and his supporters 'zero credibility' to claim the mantle of law and order. 'Donald Trump wasn't a leader on Jan. 6. He didn't send the National Guard to stop the violent mob that was brutally beating police officers in plain view for every single American to see,' Jeffries said. 'And this guy, who likely withheld the National Guard — he certainly didn't send them forward — is lecturing the country about law and order?' 'Give me a break. We're not feeling you — particularly as it relates to this issue,' he continued. 'Donald Trump and all of these minions who support him — the sycophants, the extremists — have zero credibility on this issue. Republicans have become the party of lawlessness and disorder.' Amid the unrest in L.A., Trump over the weekend activated members of the National Guard, drawing criticisms from California officials — notably Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) — who said local law enforcement agencies are sufficiently equipped to handle the situation without the involvement of federal troops. Newsom announced Monday that he is suing the administration over the federal intervention. 'This is a manufactured crisis,' Newsom posted on X. 'He is creating fear and terror to take over a state militia and violate the U.S. constitution.' Jeffries is standing squarely behind Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass (D), a former member of the House, who have both argued that local and state law enforcers in California have the faculties and manpower to protect both First Amendment rights and public safety. 'The LAPD, the L.A. Sheriff's Department, other local law enforcement, and the California Highway Patrol, seem to have the capacity to make sure that the situation is addressed — that peaceful protests are allowed to occur, and that law-breakers are held accountable,' Jeffries said.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge denies Michael Madigan's motion for new trial, setting stage for high-stakes sentencing Friday
A federal judge on Monday denied a motion by former House Speaker Michael Madigan seeking to overturn his recent conviction on bribery and other corruption counts, setting the stage for a high-stakes sentencing hearing later this week. Madigan, 83, was back in the federal courtroom for the first time since a jury convicted him nearly four months ago. But unlike his marathon trial, Monday's hearing was brief. After both sides waived oral arguments on the defense motion, U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey announced he was denying it, though his ruling, which he said is more than 100 pages long, won't be made public for some time. Madigan sat through the 15-minute hearing without comment and walked out carrying an umbrella. Blakey is holding another hearing Tuesday to go over issues on the sentencing guidelines in Madigan's case, which hinge partly on how much money ComEd stood to gain because of legislation the speaker helped usher through the legislative process. Madigan's attorneys are also asking Blakey to strike language from a prosecution filing last Friday revealing for the first time publicly that Madigan 'has amassed a personal fortune of more than $40 million' — a disclosure reported by the Tribune over the weekend. The defense wrote in a motion filed ahead of Monday's hearing that Madigan served the public as a legislator and lawyer for more than 60 years and 'chose frugality over extravagance, remaining in the same modest home for more than fifty years while making prudent savings and investment choices.' 'The government offers zero evidence—absolutely nothing—to justify broadcasting specific details about his net worth,' the motion stated. 'The government's decision to splash his personal financial information across a public filing represents a gross breach of the rules.' Blakey said he'd take up the issue on Tuesday. Madigan's sentencing, set for Friday afternoon, is one of the most highly anticipated hearings in years at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse. Prosecutors have asked for a hefty 12 1/2 year prison term and $1.5 million fine, while the defense is seeking probation along with a period of home confinement. Madigan's defense team filed a motion in March arguing for a new trial in his corruption case, saying prosecutors failed to prove the then-powerful Democrat knew about a scheme by ComEd to pay off his associates and alleging Blakey made a series of mistakes in his evidentiary rulings. The 73-page motion alleged those errors tainted the jury with highly prejudicial evidence, and asked Blakey to reverse the jury's verdict on certain guilty counts and grant a new trial on others. Among the missteps that Madigan's legal team says warrants a new trial: letting in a now-infamous FBI wiretap where Madigan tells his longtime confidant, Michael McClain, that some ComEd contractors 'made out like bandits' for little work; allowing the jury to hear prejudicial testimony about sexual harassment allegations; and including a recorded phone call between McClain and the speaker's son, Andrew Madigan, about another public utility, Peoples Gas, being forced to make political hires. The defense filing also argued that despite the jury's guilty verdict, prosecutors failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Madigan knew about any scheme to enrich his friends or that there was a 'this-for-that' agreement to help shepherd ComEd's legislation in Springfield. 'Michael Madigan is not corrupt. He never exchanged his duty to serve his constituents for private benefit — the essence of corruption,' the filing stated. 'For decades, Madigan sought to ensure ComEd did not get away with ripping off consumers in Illinois. Madigan's primary purpose was to work hard for his community and the Democratic party.' Such post-trial motions are routine and rarely granted. But the filing provides a blueprint for a likely appeal to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Madigan's trial capped one of the most significant political corruption investigations in Chicago's checkered history. It also cemented an extraordinary personal fall for Madigan, the longest-serving state legislative leader in the nation's history who for decades held an iron-tight grip on the House as well as the state Democratic Party. After 11 days of deliberation, the jury's final verdict was mixed. Madigan was convicted of 10 of 23 counts, including marquee allegations that he agreed to squeeze lucrative, do-nothing contracts from ComEd for pals such as former Alds. Frank Olivo and Michael Zalewski and precinct captains Ray Nice and Edward Moody, all while the utility won a series of major legislation victories. Madigan was also convicted on six out of seven counts — including wire fraud and Travel Act violations — regarding a plan to get ex-Ald. Daniel Solis, a key FBI mole who testified at length in the trial, appointed to a state board. Jurors deadlocked on all six counts related to Madigan's co-defendant McClain. jmeisner@