Latest news with #SB296
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
No veto override session this year, Utah legislative leaders say
House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, and Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, prepare to gavel in a joint session to hear from Utah Supreme Court Justice Matthew Durrant at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on the first day of the legislative session, Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch) Utah's top Republican legislative leaders have announced that lawmakers will not be convening a veto override session this year after Gov. Spencer Cox stopped six bills from becoming law. 'Even when our perspectives differ, we appreciate the governor's willingness to find common ground as we build an even brighter future for our great state,' Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, and House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, said in a prepared statement issued Thursday. 'After careful consideration, the Legislature has decided not to convene a veto override session,' they said. 'We will focus on constructive dialogue and thoughtful policymaking during the interim to find the best path forward that benefits all Utahns.' Among the most controversial bills Cox vetoed — and was perhaps one that could have had the best chance of a veto override — was SB296, a bill that would have given the governor and the Legislature the power to appoint the Utah Supreme Court's next chief justice every four years. Currently, the state's highest court's five justices elect their own leader. 'A broad attack': Utah's judiciary fights bills threatening its independence It was one of a handful of bills seeking changes to the state's judiciary, which has clashed with Utah lawmakers. Republicans' have expressed frustration with recent court rulings and they want to have more legislative influence over how the state's top court functions. Along with SB296, there were several other bills that legal professionals across the state decried as threatening the judiciary's 'independence and integrity.' But after Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew Durrant met with lawmakers during the 2025 session, legislative leaders announced a deal with the judiciary that they would abandon three controversial bills — including one that would give legislators a say in judicial retention elections — and instead only proceed with passing SB296. However, despite that deal, Cox decided to veto SB296, saying it went too far by requiring the state's chief justice to be reappointed every four years. He wrote in his veto letter that the decision was 'mine and mine alone,' and that no one from the judicial branch asked him for the veto. 'I admit it is very tempting to sign this bill and assure that the Chief Justice would need to stay in my good graces to retain his or her position,' Cox wrote. 'Knowing the head magistrate of our state's highest court would have to think twice before ruling against me or checking my power is difficult to reject. I also recognize that refusing power is not en vogue these days and may be seen as weakness. But just because I can, doesn't mean I should.' Cox vetoes bill that would have given governor power over appointing Utah chief justice At the time of Cox's veto, Schultz and Adams said the move 'undermines that good-faith compromise' between the Legislature and judiciary that ultimately led to lawmakers abandoning the other bills, and the Judicial Council and Utah State Bar taking a neutral position. They promised to 'work with our chambers to determine the best path forward.' Ultimately, however, they opted not to override. Another controversial bill that Cox vetoed was SB37, which would have rerouted property tax revenue for schools into the state's general fund. Education leaders opposed the bill, arguing it would be a form of 'money laundering' that could divert money away from education. Cox, at the time of his veto, said it was a matter of 'public trust,' accounting problems, legal issues and sending the wrong message to educators about Utah's commitment to public education. Then, on the last night he had to either sign or veto bills passed during the legislative session, Cox vetoed four more bills, including: SB197, a bill that would have phased out the state's Circuit Breaker property tax relief program for low-income seniors and indigent residents. Cox argued that the bill, while having 'well-intentioned goals of reforming and streamlining property tax relief programs,' would risk 'cutting off the most vulnerable of Utah's' growing senior population while saddling counties with administrative burdens. HB306, a bill that would have made Utah the first state in the country to allow vendors to receive payment in gold or silver from the state. Cox expressed concerns that the bill faced problems that made it 'operationally impracticable.' Plus, he worried that a 'specific entity offered to fund the bill, which could jeopardize the required competitive process in the bill.' Cox didn't name the entity in his veto letter, but The Salt Lake Tribune reported that in order to get the state's new transaction system up and running, about $147,000 would be paid for by private donors, and Ivory said the money would come from Kevin Freeman, who was a member of the state's gold working group and author of the 2023 book 'Pirate Money.' HB315, a bill that would have allowed breaking a tie among three or more candidates in elections for midterm vacancies in municipal offices through a 'game of chance.' Cox pointed to language in the Utah Constitution that explicitly prohibits the Legislature from authorizing 'any game of chance.' Cox said he vetoed the bill 'out of an abundance of caution to avoid creating potential legal issues.' SB106, a bill to appropriate $10,000 to create a trade commission between Utah and Ireland composed of six legislators and five appointees from the Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity. Cox said he was wary of creating more boards and commissions in statute, urging lawmakers to 'not go backward' on their efforts to reduce the number of boards and commissions below 400. He also expressed concerns about creating a trade commission for a specific country when others, which are more significant trade partners for the state, don't receive the same treatment. Though legislative leaders announced they won't be convening a veto override session, there's still a likelihood that the Legislature will convene a special session in coming weeks. Utah Gov. Cox vetoes bill to reroute property tax revenue for schools into state general fund Cox has indicated that he intends to call a special session sometime in May. In his veto letter, he said he'd signed several bills 'with the understanding that they will be amended in a special session.' Those included HB263, a bill focused on election transparency that county clerks had urged Cox to veto, but the governor wrote the bill's sponsor, Rep. Norm Thurston, R-Provo, had 'reached an agreement' with election officials to make some 'important changes.' Cox also agreed to sign HB356, a bill requiring some counties to elect district-based council members rather than at-large members, but with the expectation that lawmakers would make changes in a special session to avoid 'unintended consequences,' although he did not specify what those might be. During that special session, Cox also said he wants the Legislature to repurpose $3.5 million it had set aside as part of Utah's bid to keep the Sundance Film Festival, which opted instead to move to Colorado. 'Again, more to come soon in a special session,' Cox wrote. That special session call, however, has not yet been announced. A request for comment to the governor's office was not immediately returned Thursday afternoon. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Miami Herald
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Florida on verge of walking back later start to school days for middle and high schools
Mandatory later start times for Florida's middle and high schools appear on their way out before they ever took effect. Acknowledging the problems the 2023 law posed for many school districts, the Florida House on Tuesday unanimously agreed to give districts more local control over their bell schedules. The action came a month after the Senate voted unanimously for the change, meaning all that's left is for Gov. Ron DeSantis to sign off. The changes codified in SB 296 would allow school districts to avoid the requirement that middle schools begin no earlier than 8 a.m., and high schools no earlier than 8:30 a.m., by studying the potential effects and submitting a report to the state detailing why the shift would not work for them. House sponsor Rep. Anne Gerwig, R-Wellington, said the idea behind the original legislation, which gave districts three years to prepare, was well intentioned and backed by solid research on the sleep patterns of adolescents and teens. While some districts were able to comply, Gerwig said, several others — mostly small rural and large urban ones — confronted circumstances that made it difficult to do so. Pinellas County officials, for instance, said altering their schedules could cost close to $3 million and require dozens of additional bus drivers. Pasco County schools had similar logistic concerns. Gerwig noted the new requirement would still have districts explore the possibility of changing their schedules, but give them leeway if the consequences prove too daunting. Rep. LaVon Bracy Davis, D-Orlando, said she supported the measure, just as she opposed the initial version for some of the same reasons the reversal became necessary. 'I would hope this would be a lesson to this body,' Bracy Davis said. 'When this bill came, so many of us yelled to the rooftops about the unintended consequences. ... Unfortunately it fell on deaf ears. So here we are repealing the bill.' To which Gerwig responded, 'A lot of times we don't really realize everything that could happen.' Danielle Thomas, a lobbyist for the Florida School Boards Association, said the bill's passage was 'exactly what was needed' for districts, noting they would only have to submit a report to the state, and that it would not need approval. Even before the House vote, local officials said they welcomed the opportunity to study start times with the flexibility to act as best meets their needs. 'We'll be doing all the things that we need to do, that the law requires,' said Betsy Kuhn, Pasco deputy superintendent. Whatever bell times are approved, Kuhn added, 'you don't make everyone happy unless everybody starts at 8:30 a.m.' Pinellas school board member Lisa Cane said she has heard many students argue against changes that would interfere with after school activities and jobs. She stressed that dealing with traffic in the densely populated county will be a top concern alongside community wishes. The Hillsborough County school district implemented later middle and high school start times before the Legislature mandate was adopted.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Florida lawmakers reverse law to require later school start times
Mandatory later start times for Florida's middle and high schools appear on their way out before they ever took effect. Acknowledging the problems the 2023 law posed for many school districts, the Florida House on Tuesday unanimously agreed to give districts more local control over their bell schedules. The action came a month after the Senate voted unanimously for the change, meaning all that's left is for Gov. Ron DeSantis to sign off. The changes codified in SB 296 would allow school districts to avoid the requirement that middle schools begin no earlier than 8 a.m., and high schools no earlier than 8:30 a.m., by studying the potential effects and submitting a report to the state detailing why the shift would not work for them. House sponsor Rep. Anne Gerwig, R-Wellington, said the idea behind the original legislation, which gave districts three years to prepare, was well intentioned and backed by solid research on the sleep patterns of adolescents and teens. While some districts were able to comply, Gerwig said, several others — mostly small rural and large urban ones — confronted circumstances that made it difficult to do so. Pinellas County officials, for instance, said altering their schedules could cost close to $3 million and require dozens of additional bus drivers. Pasco County schools had similar logistic concerns. Gerwig noted the new requirement would still have districts explore the possibility of changing their schedules, but give them leeway if the consequences prove too daunting. Rep. LaVon Bracy Davis, D-Orlando, said she supported the measure, just as she opposed the initial version for some of the same reasons the reversal became necessary. 'I would hope this would be a lesson to this body,' Bracy Davis said. 'When this bill came, so many of us yelled to the rooftops about the unintended consequences. ... Unfortunately it fell on deaf ears. So here we are repealing the bill.' To which Gerwig responded, 'A lot of times we don't really realize everything that could happen.' Danielle Thomas, a lobbyist for the Florida School Boards Association, said the bill's passage was 'exactly what was needed' for districts, noting they would only have to submit a report to the state, and that it would not need approval. Even before the House vote, local officials said they welcomed the opportunity to study start times with the flexibility to act as best meets their needs. 'We'll be doing all the things that we need to do, that the law requires,' said Betsy Kuhn, Pasco deputy superintendent. Whatever bell times are approved, Kuhn added, 'you don't make everyone happy unless everybody starts at 8:30 a.m.' Pinellas school board member Lisa Cane said she has heard many students argue against changes that would interfere with after school activities and jobs. She stressed that dealing with traffic in the densely populated county will be a top concern alongside community wishes. The Hillsborough County school district implemented later middle and high school start times before the Legislature mandate was adopted.
Yahoo
14-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Will schools start later in August 2025? Here's when new start times will begin
As these final weeks of school approach, students across Florida are powering through finals and lingering homework assignments while fantasizing about their plans for their summer vacation. So obviously the last thing anyone wants to think about is when you go back to school, right? However, Florida students will soon get to sleep in a little bit later after lawmakers in 2023 approved later school start times. Will these requirements begin this upcoming school year? Not yet! The later start times will be required by the 2026-2027 school year, according to legislation signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis back in May 2023. DeSantis's law would require a later start time for middle and high schools throughout Florida. The law gave school districts three years to develop plans to implement the changes to the earlier times. The law prevents middle schools from beginning the 'instructional day' earlier than 8 a.m., while high schools will be barred from starting the school day before 8:30 a.m. Florida senators last month started moving forward with a bill to repeal requirements aimed at later daily start times in many high schools, citing districts claiming they are struggling to comply as deadline approached. Bill sponsor Jennifer Bradley, R-Fleming Island, said the 2023 law was 'very well-intentioned and it sought to ensure that our high-school students were well-rested.' 'To date, school districts across the state have begun their analysis of the impact of these required start times for the 2026 school year, and the feedback is overwhelming: A state mandate on school start times would present incredible challenges, financially and otherwise,' Bradley said before the Senate Education Pre-K-12 Committee voted 5-1 to approve the bill (SB 296). As of March 27, the bill has been sent to the Florida House of Representatives for consideration. HB733 stated the opening day of schools may not be any earlier than Sunday, Aug. 10. While some schedules are still being finalized, almost every Florida school is proposed to start the 2025-2026 school year on the first possible date — Monday, Aug. 11 — after Aug. 10. Here's when most counties go back to school: Alachua: Aug. 11 Baker: Aug. 11 Bay: Aug. 11 Bradford: Aug. 12 Brevard: Aug. 11 Broward: Aug. 11 Charlotte: Aug. 11 Citrus: Aug. 11 Clay: Aug. 11 Collier: Aug. 11 Columbia: Aug. 11 Dixie: Aug. 11 Duval: Aug. 11 Escambia: Aug. 11 Flagler: Aug. 11 Glades: Aug. 11 Gulf: Aug. 11 Hamilton: Aug. 11 Hendry: Aug. 11 Hernando: Aug. 11 Highlands: Aug. 11 Hillsborough: Aug. 11 Holmes: Aug. 13 Indian River: Aug. 11 Jefferson: Aug. 11 Lake: Aug. 11 Lee: Aug. 11 Leon: Aug. 11 Levy: Aug. 11 Manatee: Aug. 11 Marion: Aug. 11 Martin: Aug. 11 Miami-Dade: Aug. 14 Monroe: Aug. 13 Nassau: Aug. 11 Okaloosa: Aug. 11 Okeechobee: Aug. 11 Orange: Aug. 11 Osceola: Aug. 11 Palm Beach: Aug. 11 Pasco: Aug. 26 Pinellas: Aug. 11 Polk: Aug. 11 Putnam: Aug. 11 Santa Rosa: Aug. 11 Sarasota: Aug. 11 Seminole: Aug. 11 St. Johns: Aug. 11 St. Lucie: Aug. 11 Sumter: Aug. 13 Suwannee: Aug. 11 Union: Aug. 11 Volusia: Aug. 11 Wakulla: Aug. 12 Washington: Aug. 11 According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the minimum amount of instruction time for Florida students is 180 days. That amount of time is typical across the country, although there are a few states requiring slightly fewer or more days. Florida requires children in kindergarten through grade 3 to have instructional time of 720 hours. That time increases to 900 hours for students in grades 4 through 12, although school districts have the option to meet either minimum hours per school year or days per school year. This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Florida schools later start times: When they will go into effect
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: Legislative dust finally settles
March is a stormy time for politics as the Legislature ends and the governor reviews hundreds of bills. We review the implications and fallout from the preceding month. Gov. Spencer Cox vetoed six bills and allowed two others to become effective without his signature. While some of his objections were technical, others reflected policy positions. He is requesting a special session to reform some bills he signed. Meanwhile, lawmakers will determine the appetite for veto overrides. What are the ramifications of Cox's exercise of gubernatorial powers? Cowley: Cox's vetoes signal his willingness to challenge the Republican-dominated Legislature, yet his special session request reflects collaboration with legislative counterparts. The governor is keenly aware of opportunities to fulfill his pre-session promises to provide (or in this case, protect) tax relief for seniors. One of the most debated decisions of where to expend ink was the pride flag bill. Cox allowed it to go into law without his signature, citing that even if he used his red pen, the Legislature would assuredly override it. This nuanced approach will likely result in Cox facing pressure to better define where he stands on the issue. In a move rarely undertaken by any executive branch, Cox declined to expand his power and vetoed SB296, which would have allowed him to choose the chief justice, preserving judicial autonomy. Pignanelli: 'They called me Veto Corleone. Because I vetoed 2,500 separate line-items in the budget.' — Jeb Bush Years ago, I conversed with a veteran lawmaker about the governor vetoing bills. He opined that lawmakers, including him, would erupt with anger at such insolence. However, the astute politician also observed that the governor's office is a muscle that needs exercise, and rejecting legislation maintains strength. He believed the executive pushback built parameters for future lawmaking, even if overridden. Cox's vetoes (and bills passed without signature) reaffirm his place in formulating tax and election policies. SB296 would have given Cox the ability to select the chief justice. There was a compromise by the courts and Utah bar (which this firm is honored to represent) to be neutral on this bill in exchange for dismissal of HB512, an aggressive restructuring of the judicial retention process. Thus, Cox's veto of the bill raised eyebrows. As Cox expressed to lawmakers, the courts (including the bar) did not request this action. However, this wrinkle in the agreement may propel an override or a potential future reexamination of judicial retention. Perhaps Cox's strategy is to assert a more decisive role in actions regarding the judicial branch. Political observers and the governor have increasingly warned about the number of bills introduced and passed every legislative session. In 2025, 962 bills and resolutions were introduced (surpassing the 2024 record of 942), and an almost record-breaking number passed. Is this an issue, and will it ever be resolved? Cowley: The public sees the astronomical volume of legislation coupled with headlines of perceived insignificant or even humorously unnecessary bills, and wonder if elected officials are squandering time and resources. As an insider, I can attest that weighty issues are addressed — tax reductions, educational freedom, etc. — but superfluous bills are a distraction. It's hard to argue that Utah would come to a screeching halt if all 582 bills didn't pass. There isn't a good solution other than encouraging legislators to focus on quality rather than quantity. Limiting the number of bills will only make each longer and more complex, akin to federal spending bills. Only those plagued with political obsession disease or severe insomnia read every word, thus minimizing public scrutiny. One way to curtail voluminous legislation is for the governor to more liberally use veto authority. Pignanelli: Decades ago, an arrogant legislator sponsored 20 bills and was chastised by fellow lawmakers and the media for burdening the system. Of course, I was that obnoxious politician who angrily claimed a constitutional prerogative to represent my constituents. So, I cannot join others in the complaint chorus. Despite the increasing bill flow, I am amazed that the system functions well. Still, modifications are needed to utilize interim sessions better for analyzing complex issues. Lawmakers with bills in similar subject areas should be encouraged to combine efforts. But again, I'm not pointing fingers. Sundance Film Festival announces that after 40 years in Utah, they will move to Boulder, Colorado, in 2027. Was this a political or economic decision? Cowley: Utah has more to offer than just free money. Outdoor Retailers threatened to leave over political differences. They even tried leveraging lawmakers for more incentive money and threw a tantrum when they didn't get their ransom, but eventually came back. I'll miss stargazing, but will sleep fine knowing our tax dollars aren't treated like Halloween candy. As with many rocky relationships, time apart might help Sundance see what a good thing they had with Park City. It may also open new opportunities utilizing the 'greatest snow on Earth,' like the X Games. Pignanelli: Our firm represented Sundance for several years, and they were aware of local political dynamics. Their decision was a financial consideration, as Colorado offered an incentive larger than Utah's proposal. The impact will be less than predicted. The festival is a lively event, but unique visitor attendance is dropping. A future return is likely, as Salt Lake City is more user-friendly.
