Bill to create nontraditional high school diploma program passes House
A bill that would create a nontraditional high school diploma program for people who have dropped out passed the Alabama House unanimously on Tuesday.
HB 266, sponsored by Rep. Matt Woods, R-Jasper, allows former students to enroll in a program to earn the equivalent of a high school diploma at 18 years old. Woods said the Restoring Educational Advancement of Completing High School Act expands the options for people who've dropped out to get back on track with their education.
'This bill addresses a segment of our population that's falling between the cracks,' Woods said. 'We believe that we can help them pursue their educational pathway.'
There is a nontraditional diploma option for adult education, but Woods said the minimum age is 19. He said his bill lowers the age to 18.
'The idea behind that is that a student who drops out of high school won't have to wait as long before they can finish their high school diploma,' Woods said.
Although supportive of the bill, Rep. Laura Hall, D-Huntsville, said she wants to look into preventing high school withdrawals.
'At some point we've got to challenge those things that cause these young people to be at the point where they are dropping out of school,' Hall said.
Rep. Van Smith, R-Clanton, offered an amendment to allow students to enroll in the REACH program before they withdraw to expand their options.
'It will put in an opportunity for students to enroll in this program that Rep. Woods is presenting to us,' Smith said. 'Then that individual will not be counted as a dropout.'
The amendment passed 103-0. The bill goes to the Alabama Senate.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
29 minutes ago
- New York Post
Watch: Texas House Democrat Nicole Collier locked in Chamber overnight in protest
Texas House Democrat Nicole Collier spent the night at the state's Capitol, which she live streamed, after refusing to sign a pledge that she would return for a vote on redistricting. Her protest came after House Speaker Dustin Burrows announced that the Texas Democrats would not be allowed to leave the chambers until they signed a document promising to show up the following morning and that they would be forced to have police escorts back and forth. Collier called the requirement "demeaning." 'I refuse to sign,' she told Fox 7 Austin. 'I will not agree to be in [Department of Public Safety] custody. I'm not a criminal. I am exercising my right to resist and oppose the decisions of our government. So this is my form of protest.'
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Indiana's D.C. delegation pushes redistricting as state lawmakers meet behind closed doors
This story was updated to add information. One by one, Indiana's Republican U.S. representatives are coming out in support of redistricting in Indiana, weeks after Vice President JD Vance's visit to Indianapolis. The pressure campaign on X mounted at the same time that state House Republicans met privately off Statehouse grounds to discuss President Donald Trump's push to redraw maps mid-decade, which to date has proven unpopular among the state lawmakers. Gov. Mike Braun, who has the power to call a special session to redistrict, told reporters Aug. 18 he is still undecided and leaning on the will of the legislature. "I'm not going to call them unless there is going to be general agreement that we need to," he said. Nor did the House Republican caucus make any decisions at their two-hour meeting, held at a private office building on the north side of the city. "We're still talking," House Speaker Todd Huston told the Indiana Capital Chronicle. An hour before the House caucused, U.S. Rep. Marlin Stutzman of the 3rd District was the first to post on X that "it's time to redraw Indiana's congressional map." The rest of his Republican colleagues in the Indiana delegation followed suit over the next few hours, some posting on campaign accounts and some on their official ones: U.S. Reps. Victoria Spartz of the 5th, Rudy Yakym of the 2nd, Mark Messmer of the 8th, Erin Houchin of the 9th, Jim Baird of the 4th and Jefferson Shreve of the 6th. All of their posts followed the same formula, framing the desire to redistrict as a response to Democrats' gerrymandering in blue states. Two of those supporters, Messmer and Houchin, voted for Indiana's current congressional maps as state representatives when they were drawn in 2021. Now they are saying redrawing the maps mid-decade could help strengthen conservative representation in Washington. Right now, Republicans hold seven of Indiana's nine seats. Messmer made sure to tag Gov. Mike Braun in his post, in whose hands the decision to call a special session lies. "I am proud to support Hoosier State Legislators and our great @GovBraun in fighting the long history of weaponized voter manipulation in CA, NY, and IL," Messmer wrote. "Redistricting in Indiana will accurately reflect the will of Hoosier voices." This slew of social media messaging is only the latest pressure tactic from D.C. as Indiana lawmakers have come forward vehemently opposing redistricting. Many voters in certain regions of the state received texts and robocalls from a group calling themselves "Forward America," urging them to tell their state legislators to "fight back against the radical left's agenda" and "stand up for redistricting." Moreover, some Indiana lawmakers will be heading to D.C. next week for a previously-scheduled meeting where they will talk about how to "implement President Trump's agenda." While the invitation pre-dates Indiana's pushback and the agenda doesn't explicitly include redistricting, this presents an in-person opportunity for the topic to come up. More: As national conservatives urge Indiana to redistrict, even pro-Trump lawmakers are opposed Contact IndyStar Statehouse reporter Kayla Dwyer at kdwyer@ or follow her on X@kayla_dwyer17.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Republicans say they'll sue to block California redistricting plan. Do they have a case?
Gov. Gavin Newsom's plan to ask the voters to redesign California's congressional districts to enable Democrats to add House seats is drawing challenges from Republicans who claim the proposal violates the state Constitution and federal law. But the law doesn't appear to be on their side. As the Democratic-controlled Legislature prepares to vote this week on Newsom's proposed November ballot measure to change districts that were drafted by an independent commission, Assembly Member Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, asked the nonpartisan Legislative Counsel's Office to declare the measure illegal. He said he was also prepared to go to court. 'By concocting this partisan redistricting scam, Gavin Newsom and Democrat politicians are openly violating the California Constitution and their oath of office,' DeMaio said in a news release. 'Any vote … on this corrupt plan would be unlawful and unconstitutional.' He argued that the state Constitution, under a ballot measure approved by the voters in 2008, allows only a bipartisan commission to draw district lines and does not permit them to be redrafted for political purposes. The National Republican Congressional Committee also said Newsom's plan would be challenged in court as well as the ballot box. Newsom 'is shredding California's Constitution and disenfranchising voters to prop up his Presidential ambitions,' Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., chair of the committee, said on X. But Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at UCLA who has written widely on election law issues, said the Legislature can ask California voters to change the state Constitution by placing an amendment on the ballot with two-thirds majority votes in each house. Newsom and legislative Democrats introduced their measure on Monday. 'If it's a constitutional amendment approved by voters, then there is no state law problem with amending the earlier constitutional amendment,' Hasen said. Newsom's November ballot measure, a response to plans by Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas to redraw the state's House districts and allow Republicans to pick up five seats next year, would likewise redesign California's congressional districts for the remainder of the decade to enable Democrats to add five seats to their current 43-9 majority in the state if Texas or any other state redrew its district lines. The proposed state constitutional amendment, ACA8, dubbed the Election Rigging Response Act, was introduced Monday with 43 coauthors in the Assembly and 20 in the state Senate, all of them Democrats. They plan legislative votes on Thursday. The ballot proposal would temporarily suspend the state constitutional limits on redistricting that DeMaio cited. But he contended the Legislature has no authority even to ask the voters to remove restrictions they had added to the state Constitution, and that such changes could be made only by an initiative from private citizens. DeMaio said he would actually prefer a U.S. constitutional amendment establishing an independent commission to draw nonpartisan House district lines in every state. Until that happens, he told the Chronicle, Newsom and his fellow Democrats should refrain from asking Californians to 'act like a bunch of toddlers because two wrongs make a right.' Another election law professor, Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, who was a national policy adviser for democracy and voting rights under President Joe Biden, said DeMaio was correct that the California Constitution currently prohibits legislators from redrawing district lines. 'But that's exactly why the Legislature is proposing a constitutional amendment,' Levitt said. 'And I'm not aware of any limitation on the Legislature to propose such an amendment for the voters to consider.' DeMaio also said federal law allows changing district lines only after each 10-year census and prohibits mid-decade redistricting. But the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in a 2006 case, League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, allowing Republican legislators in Texas to redraw House district lines in their favor. 'The text and structure of the Constitution and our case law indicate there is nothing inherently suspect about a legislature's decision to replace mid-decade a court-ordered plan with one of its own,' Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for a 7-2 court majority. Texas' current Republican majority, and partisans on both sides in other states, have relied on that ruling to propose off-year redistricting for their own advantage. Levitt said he'd prefer to limit the practice to once per decade. 'I wish there were such a law — and Congress could clearly pass one,' the Loyola law professor said, noting that legislation to prohibit mid-decade redistricting of U.S. House seats has been proposed in Congress for more than 20 years. 'But that's not currently where federal law stands.' Hasen of UCLA said Newsom's proposal might be challenged on other legal grounds, such as the rule limiting California ballot measures to a single subject. But he said opponents' strongest argument would probably be a political one — that the voters should reject a plan to suspend the nonpartisan redistricting program they approved 17 years ago. DeMaio appeared to agree on Monday. 'If we stop it in court, fine,' he said at a press conference in the state Capitol. 'But more than likely it will have to be stopped at the ballot box.' Also Monday, DeMaio submitted a proposed initiative for the 2026 state ballot that would ban any legislators from seeking any elected office for 10 years who voted to put Newsom's redistricting measure on the ballot. 'There is no free ride on casting a corrupt vote this week — if a state legislator votes in favor, they better be prepared to get a real job for the next 10 years,' DeMaio said.
