Here are the primary results for the York City School Board race
All seven candidates running for York City School Board won in the primary on Tuesday based on the unofficial results.
They will vie for four seats on the board in the Nov. 4, 2025 election.
On the Democratic ticket, the four candidates who were nominated are: incumbent Lisa Kennedy with 849 votes, incumbent Margie Orr with 704 votes, Aisha Beatty-White with 647 votes and Tynisha Wilkes with 636 votes.
On the Republican ticket, Halman B. Smith II led with 226 votes followed by Dolores I. Minaya with 210 votes, Aisha Beatty-White with 208 votes, and Breauja Banks with 199 votes.
Knowledge Ravon Timmons was running as a write-in candidate as part of YCSD New Board.
This article originally appeared on York Daily Record: 2025 primary results for the York City School Board race
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
8 minutes ago
US governors are divided along party lines about military troops deployed to protests
California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is calling President Donald Trump's military intervention at protests over federal immigration policy in Los Angeles an assault on democracy and has sued to try to stop it. Meanwhile, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is putting the National Guard on standby in areas in his state where demonstrations are planned. The divergent approaches illustrate the ways the two parties are trying to navigate national politics and the role of executive power in enforcing immigration policies. In his live TV address this week, Newsom said that Trump's move escalated the situation — and for political gain. All 22 other Democratic governors signed a statement sent by the Democratic Governors Association on Sunday backing Newsom, calling the Guard deployment and threats to send in Marines 'an alarming abuse of power' that "undermines the mission of our service members, erodes public trust, and shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement.' The protests in Los Angeles have mostly been contained to five blocks in a small section of downtown; nearly 200 people were detained on Tuesday and at least seven police officers have been injured. In Republican-controlled states, governors have not said when or how they're planning to deploy military troops for protests. Since Trump's return to office, Democratic governors have been calculating about when to criticize him, when to emphasize common ground and when to bite their tongues. The governors' responses are guided partly by a series of political considerations, said Kristoffer Shields, director of the Eagleton Center on the American Governor at Rutgers University: How would criticizing Trump play with Democrats, Republicans and independent voters in their states? And for those with presidential ambitions, how does that message resonate nationally? Democratic governors are weighing a number of considerations. 'There probably is some concern about retributions — what the reaction of the administration could be for a governor who takes a strong stance," Shields said. And in this case, polling indicates about half of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling immigration, though that polling was conducted before the recent military deployment. On other issues, Democratic governors have taken a variety of approaches with Trump. At a White House meeting in February, Maine Democratic Gov. Janet Mills told Trump, ' we'll see you in court ' over his push to cut off funding to the state because it allowed transgender athletes in girls' school sports. Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer, a possible 2028 presidential candidate, publicly sparred with Trump during his first term but this time around, has met with him privately to find common ground. Initially, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green referred to Trump as a 'straight-up dictator," but the next month he told a local outlet that he was treading carefully, saying: 'I'm not going to criticize him directly much at all." Apart from their joint statement, some of the highest-profile Democratic governors have not talked publicly about the situation in California. When asked, on Wednesday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul's office pointed to a Sunday social media post about the joint statement. Whitmer didn't respond. The office of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who is set to testify before Congress on Thursday about his state laws protecting people who are in the country without legal status, reiterated in a statement that he stands with Newsom. The office said 'local authorities should be able to do their jobs without the chaos of this federal interference and intimidation.' Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, in an interview Wednesday in The Washington Post, said Trump should not send troops to a weekend protest scheduled in Philadelphia. 'He's injected chaos into the world order, he's injected it into our economy, he is trying to inject chaos into our streets by doing what he did with the Guard in California," Shapiro said. As state attorney general during Trump's first term, Shapiro routinely boasted that he sued Trump over 40 times and won each time. As governor he has often treaded more carefully, by bashing Trump's tariffs, but not necessarily targeting Trump himself. Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has often clashed with Newsom, a fellow term-limited governor with national ambitions. Newsom's office said DeSantis offered to send Florida State Guard troops to California. 'Given the guard were not needed in the first place, we declined Governor DeSantis attempt to inflame an already chaotic situation made worse by his Party's leader,' Newsom spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo said in an email to The Associated Press. Speaking on Fox News on Tuesday, DeSantis said the gesture was a typical offer of mutual aid during a crisis — and was dismissive of the reasons it was turned down. 'The way to put the fire out is to make sure you have law and order,' he said. Protests against immigration enforcement raids have sprung up in other cities — and a series of 'No Kings' demonstrations are planned for the weekend — with governors preparing to respond. In Connecticut, Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont said he has spoken with his public safety commissioner to make sure state and local police work together. 'I don't want to give the president any pretext to think he can come into Connecticut and militarize the situation. That just makes the situation worse,' said Lamont, who called Trump "a little eager to send federal troops and militarize the situation in Los Angeles.' It is unclear how many Texas National Guard members will be deployed or how many cities asked for assistance. In Austin, where police used chemical irritants to disperse several hundred protesters on Monday, the mayor's office said the National Guard was not requested. San Antonio officials also said they didn't request the Guard. Florida's DeSantis said law enforcement in his state is preparing 'The minute you cross into attacking law enforcement, any type of rioting, any type of vandalism, looting, just be prepared to have the law come down on you,' DeSantis said Tuesday. 'And we will make an example of you, you can guarantee it.' ___ Associated Press reporters Nadia Lathan and Jim Vertuno in Austin, Texas; Sophie Austin in Sacramento, California; Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Michigan; Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock, Arkansas; Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut; Anthony Izaguirre in Albany, New York; Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Florida; and Sophia Tareen in Chicago; contributed.
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Controversial Illinois ‘sanctuary' law at center of Pritzker's testimony in Washington
WASHINGTON, D.C. - As Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker prepares to testify before a Congressional committee on Thursday morning, he'll face questions about the state's TRUST Act. The controversial law limits the degree to which local police can cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. The backstory In 2017, Illinois enacted the TRUST Act under Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner. The law bans local police from complying with federal requests to detain or arrest a person in the country illegally, unless ordered by a judge. Local law enforcement also cannot stop, search, or arrest anyone based solely on their immigration or citizenship status. In 2021, the state legislature passed laws expanding protections for immigrants in Illinois. Mark Fleming of the National Immigrant Justice Center helped craft the bill and said the point is to keep immigration enforcement in the hands of federal agents. "State and local governments are making a decision not to participate in civil immigration enforcement," Fleming said. Fleming said that doesn't mean local law enforcement can't help out in some cases. "We're not allowed to ask where you're from. They made that part of the act," he said. The other side DuPage County Sheriff James Mendrick, who recently announced a run for governor as a Republican, said the Trust Act has forced police officers to choose between conflicting sets of state and federal laws. "They've got the cops scared to death," Mendrick said. "Cops are worried that if they take action, they're gonna get sued." Mendrick believes Illinois communities would be safer if police shared immigration status of criminal suspects right away, so ICE could apprehend them while in custody – as opposed to raiding homes, schools and businesses. But Fleming says the idea is to allow residents to come out of the shadows without fear of being deported by local police. "Every study that has looked at it has uniformly found that TRUST Act doesn't diminish community safety, and that in areas like domestic violence laws like the TRUST Act enhance community safety," Fleming said. But Mendrick says he believes the TRUST Act violates federal law and is calling for the Department of Justice to investigate. "You can't shield them from detection," Mendrick said. "Giving them housing and putting 44 million into housing, sounds like shielding to me, sounds like harboring, sounds like participating." Fleming says the courts have already spoken and ruled in favor of the state's implementation of the law. "Frankly, this issue has been litigated over and over first in the first Trump administration and now in the second Trump administration," he said.
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Donald Trump and the 'rhetoric of emergency'
Tariffs, immigration, energy: In all these areas, Donald Trump has granted himself exceptional and broad presidential powers by declaring "emergency" situations that his critics insist do not exist. "In the United States, there is no tradition of emergency powers (granted to the president) under the Constitution," New York University professor Noah Rosenblum told AFP. But various laws allow the commander-in-chief's powers to be expanded on an exceptional -- and usually temporary -- basis. Historically such emergency powers have been invoked to deal with natural disasters, to deploy responders or troops, and to unlock critical funding. "But that, of course, is not how Donald Trump is using it," Rosenblum said. Since returning to the White House on January 20, the Republican president has repeatedly invoked states of emergency in a variety of areas -- eight times in all, according to National Public Radio -- thus green-lighting swift and forceful intervention on his administration's part. They have had little to do with hurricanes, floods or earthquakes. On his first day in office, Trump declared a "national energy emergency" in the United States -- the world's leading oil producer. By early April, frustrated by the trade deficits the United States had with many countries, including some imbalances going back decades, Trump declared a national emergency, among other reasons, "to increase our competitive edge," the White House said. The result? Tariffs slapped on adversaries and allies alike. The flow of migrants arriving from Mexico has prompted Trump to declare a state of emergency at the US southern border, and he apparently feels empowered to respond with massive import duties, or forced deportations of undocumented migrants. - 'Aspiring autocrat' - Now, Trump has sent the US military into Los Angeles to quell protests, invoking a seldom-used law that allows the president to deploy National Guard units if there is a "rebellion or danger of rebellion." The move countered the wishes of local authorities and California Governor Gavin Newsom, who accused Trump of a "dictatorial" drift. "The president is simply announcing emergencies when there aren't any," said Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri, noting how local police have said they are capable of handling clashes with protesters opposed to raids by immigration agents. "All of these grants of potential emergency powers really don't account for the election of a president like Mr. Trump, who is not entirely rational, who is not dedicated to the rule of law, who is, in fact, an aspiring autocrat who is looking... to exercise extraordinary power," Bowman told AFP. Trump is not the first US leader to invoke exceptional circumstances to justify such moves, even if he does so in a way without precedent. His Democratic predecessor Joe Biden, for example, decided to forgive student debt given the "emergency" created by the Covid pandemic. The conservative-leaning Supreme Court was not convinced, however, and blocked the plan. - Eisenhower and Nixon - In Trump's case, will the courts, which have been flooded by lawsuits, affirm the legality of actions taken in the name of imminent peril? The tendency of judges "in these kinds of things is to defer pretty heavily to the president," Bowman said. On Thursday, a California court will consider a request by Governor Newsom to suspend Trump's troop deployment. In a filing to the court, the administration said Trump's judgment has historical precedent. Courts did not interfere when President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops to protect school desegregation or when Richard Nixon deployed the military to deliver the mail during a postal workers' strike, "and courts should not interfere here either," it said. Beyond the legal tussles, the relentless use of the language of urgency, of imminent threat or national peril, is part of a broader strategy, professor Rosenblum stressed. Trump, he said, "is using the perpetual rhetoric of emergency to keep us perpetually riled up and either on the defensive and so increasingly exhausted or scared and aggressive -- and so demanding government intervention." aue-mlm/sla/sco
