In a little-noticed maneuver in the 2016 Presidential campaign, the Trump team watered down the Republican Party’s platform on military aid to Ukraine. Trump’s campaign director, Paul Manafort, had previously earned millions of dollars as a political consultant to the pro-Russian president of Ukraine and as an advisor to one of Putin’s oligarchs, Oleg Deripaska.
Let it be noted too that the Obama administration sat on its hands when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014 and seized control of a large chunk of Ukraine.
One of the questions raised over the course of this year’s presidential race is about how a President Trump would deal with Russian president Vladimir Putin.
One reason to wonder: the Republican Party platform’s new language on policy towards Ukraine.
When Republican Party leaders drafted the platform prior to their convention in Cleveland last month, they had relatively little input from the campaign of then-presumptive nominee Donald Trump on most issues — except when it came to a future Republican administration’s stance on Ukraine.
It started when platform committee member Diana Denman tried to insert language calling for the U.S. to provide lethal defensive weapons to the Ukrainian government, which is fighting a separatist insurrection backed by Russia. Denman says she had no idea she was “going into a fire fight,” calling it “an interesting exchange, to say the least.”
Denman is a long time GOP activist from Texas. When she presented her proposal during a platform subcommittee meeting last month, “two gentleman,” whom Denman said were part of the Trump campaign, came over, looked at the language, and asked that it be set aside for further review.
She says after further discussion the pair “had to make some calls and clear it.” She says they found the language was still too strong.
The Trump campaign convinced the platform committee to change Denman’s proposal. It went from calling on the U.S. to provide Ukraine “lethal defensive weapons” to the more benign phrase “appropriate assistance.”
It’s more than semantics. Many Republicans have been demanding the Obama administration provide a more robust response to Russia’s incursions in Ukraine.
Denman “was steam rolled,” said Melinda Haring of the Atlantic Council, a Washington, DC, think tank, who believes the language the Trump campaign approved is weaker. And she says “it’s anyone’s guess” what Trump would do regarding Ukraine and Russia, and that perhaps he might not even back “appropriate assistance.”
Haring was referring to Trumps appearance on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos last month, when Trump said Vladimir Putin is “not going to go into Ukraine, OK? Just so you understand, he’s not going to go into Ukraine.”
The adoption of voucher programs has been a boon for religious schools. Schools that were financially troubled are now thriving with public subsidies for their students as well as an influx of new students.
This article by reporter Holly Meyer on the Associated Press newswire describes the good fortune of religious schools but does not mention the copious research demonstrating the failure of vouchers.
The Miami Archdiocese’s superintendent of schools says Catholic education is increasingly in demand in South Florida, now that all K-12 students regardless of income are allowed to use taxpayer-funded programs to pay for private school tuition.
Against the backdrop of favorable decisions by the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court, Florida was among nine states that expanded school voucher programs last year. So many families have signed up for the taxpayer-funded tuition reimbursements, some states are already exceeding their budgets….
The movement gained momentum amid fallout from pandemic-era school restrictions, debates on how transgender students should participate in school life, and wars over books and curriculum related to race and LGBTQ+ issues….
Some long-running religious schools are now planning for a fuller future after the wave of policy wins for the so-called school choice movement. Others hope voucher expansion comes to their state.
“We are moving into growth mode,” said Jim Rigg, superintendent of the Miami Archdiocese’s 64 schools. Accelerated by the state’s private school scholarship program, enrollment has risen for the last four years, reaching its highest peak in over a decade, he said….
Nearly 80% of private school families choose religious ones, according to P. George Tryfiates, public policy and legal affairs vice president for the Association of Christian Schools International. The association represents about 2,200 U.S. schools.
In a statement, he said Christian schools are, among other things, “a refuge from the cultural wars over sexuality.”
Voucher programs do not include accountability measures nor do they ban discrimination. Religious Scholls are not required to comply with federal laws so they may ban students with disabilities and students of religions different from the sponsor.
Most vouchers are used by students already enrolled in religious schools.
The voucher movement is a not subtle way of gutting civil rights protections.
IDEA, the largest charter chain in Texas, was just placed under conservatorship by the state education agency because of ongoing financial transgressions, self-dealing and conflicts of interest.
The state of Texas gave more than $800 million last year to IDEA. The federal Charter Schools Program—which is rank with waste, fraud, and abuse—has gifted IDEA with $300 million. It was a favorite of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.
For years, both the state and the U.S. Department of Education have been aware of IDEA’s profligate spending. This is the charter chain that wanted to lease a 6-passenger private jet for $15 million for its executives. This is the chain that bought luxury box seats for the San Antonio Spurs basketball games. This is the chain that gave its founder a golden parachute of $900,000 when financial abuses forced him out.
When there is so much that is fraudulent in the chain’s spending, can you trust its reports about enrollment, grades, test scores, and graduation rates? Business leaders in San Antonio saw IDEA as a great replacement for public schools. They were hoodwinked.
Texas’ largest charter school network has been placed under conservatorship by the Texas Education Agency after a years-long investigation into improper spending within the system of 143 schools.
The arrangement, announced Wednesday, is part of a settlement agreement between IDEA Public Schools and the TEA. IDEA had been under investigation since 2021 following numerous allegations of financial and operational misconduct.
It was revealed that IDEA officials used public dollars to purchase luxury driver services as well as $15 million to lease a private jet, just two weeks after promising TEA it would be “strictly enforcing” new fiscal responsibility policies put in place in response to ongoing investigations, as reported by San Antonio Express-News.
The revelations led the district to conduct an internal investigation, resulting in the firing of JoAnn Gama, former superintendent and co-founder of IDEA. Gama later filed a lawsuit against IDEA claiming wrongful termination. IDEA came to a $475,000 settlement with Gama in January. This followed co-founder and CEO Tom Torkelson’s departure in 2020; he was given a $900,000 severance package.
The charter school district serves about 80,000 students in K-12. The schools are independently run but publicly funded with state dollars, having received about $821 million in state funding in 2023-2024 school year.
Under conservatorship, the conservators will have the authority to oversee and direct any action of the district, facilitate a needs assessment, conduct onsite inspections and support the creation of a plan to address corrective action concerns. They will also report back to the agency regarding the district’s progress in completing necessary corrective activities.
The conservators will not fully take over the governance of the district. But if the district doesn’t make the necessary corrective measures that the conservators outline for them, a takeover could be possible in the future…
Glenn Rogers is a veterinarian and a rancher who lives in Graford, Texas. In addition to his duties as a vet and a rancher, he served on the school board of the Graham Independent School District. He was elected to represent District 60 in the Texas Legislature in 2021. He is a conservative, and he tries to represent his rural constituents faithfully. They don’t want vouchers. They want more funding for their local public schools and higher salaries for their teachers. People know their teachers. The teachers know their students and their families. The public schools are important for the local economy. The tradition of Friday night high school football games unifies the community; it’s known as “Friday night lights.”
When Representative Rogers voted against vouchers along with other rural Republicans, Governor Abbott unleashed an advertising blitz against them. The ads accused them of being “weak on security,” which was a lie. Money from billionaires poured into the district to smear Rep. Rogers. He lost.
First, I want to thank my supporters, those who voted for me and those who supported me prayerfully, financially, and in so many other ways. It has been the greatest honor to serve this district.
The corruption that exists at the highest level of Texas state government would have made Governor “Pa” Ferguson blush.
Governor Greg Abbott has defiled the Office of Governor by creating and repeating blatant lies about me and my House colleagues, those who took a stand for our public schools. I stood by the Governor on all his legislative priorities but just one, school vouchers. For just one disagreement, and for a $6 million check from Jeff Yass, a Pennsylvanian TikTok investor, and voucher vendor, Abbott went scorched earth against rural Texas and the Representatives who did their jobs-representing their districts.
My tenure in the Texas House included two general sessions, seven special sessions, redistricting, Covid, winter storm Uri, a Democrat quorum break, expulsion of a House member and the impeachment of Ken Paxton. It also includes a litany of conservative victories that made Texas safer, reigned in out-of-control government bureaucracy, lessened what had become a crushing tax burden on our families and businesses, and fostered economic growth.
I am not a good politician. I am just a Texas rancher who wanted to make a difference in my community. Who knew this simple mission would have resulted in three brutal campaigns?
Throughout my three campaigns, because of my unwillingness to be compliant with the two billionaire, “Christian” Nationalist, power brokers that run this state, I have been unmercifully slandered through the politics of unwarranted personal destruction on social media, radio, post mail, streaming sites, and cable television.
In my first race the opposition was the Wilks, Tim Dunn, Empower Texans, and the entire enterprise of dozens of PACs and “non-profits” they financed. The race ended in a hard fought Covid-delayed runoff victory against Farris Wilks’ son-in-law.
In my second race, my opposition was Wilks and Dunn, Empower Texans (rebranded to Defend Texas Liberty), and the Voucher Lobby, including the American Federation for Children and the School Freedom Fund (based in Virginia). In that race, we dealt with a runoff and an expensive, unnecessary recount.
In my third race the opposition was all the above, but now included a rebranded Defend Texas Liberty (Texans United for a Conservative Majority), vastly greater money from the Voucher Lobby, and Governor Greg Abbott.
This time the millions of dollars spent spreading lies about my record and the non-stop false impugning of my integrity were just too much to overcome. The real losers in this race are:
1) Texas public schools;
2) Rural Texas; and
3) Representative Government.
This morning, I have no regrets. I believe in the words of Sam Houston, “Do right and risk the consequences.”
History will prove Ken Paxton is a corrupt, sophisticated criminal. History will prove vouchers are simply an expensive entitlement program for the wealthy and a get rich scheme for voucher vendors. History will prove Governor Greg Abbott is a liar.
History will prove that our current state government is the most corrupt ever and is “bought” by a few radical dominionist billionaires seeking to destroy public education, privatize our public schools and create a Theocracy that is both un-American and un-Texan.
May God save Texas!
[Editors Note: the Wilks brothers and Tim Dunn are oil-and-gas billionaires who are evangelical Christians; they want vouchers, and they use their money to control state government. Ken Paxton is the State Attorney General who was impeached by the Texas House of Teprrsentatibes on multiple charges of corruption, based on whistleblower reports from his own staff. After Paxton’s billionaire friends came to the rescue, giving a campaign contribution of $2 million to Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who conducted the trial in the Srnate, Paxton was acquitted. In this week’s election, Attorney General Paxton and his wealthy friends ousted legislators and judges who tried to hold him accountable.]
Jan Resseger reports that the wild expansion of vouchers in Ohio has worked as predicted: they confer public money on students who already attend private and religious schools. They do not benefit children who are poor. The claim that they would “help poor children escape failing schools” was a hoax.
Maybe voucher advocates believed it thirty years ago, when no one knew how vouchers would work. But now we know. The evidence from every state with vouchers shows the same result: the overwhelming majority of vouchers are used by students who never attended public schools. The more states expand vouchers, the more they subsidize affluent families. And the poor kids who take vouchers fall behind their peers in public schools.
She writes:
The Cleveland Plain Dealer placed Laura Hancock’s expose about Ohio’s wildly expanded school voucher program on the front page above the fold in Sunday’s paper. It is good to see this dangerous threat to public schooling—inserted into the state budget with minimal public discussion—receiving the attention it deserves.
Hancock’s message? Ohio isn’t helping poor kids in public schools, the original promise of Ohio’s first voucher program in Cleveland in the 1990s. Instead, the new vouchers are a gift to middle income and wealthy families whose children are already enrolled in private and parochial schools:
“The number of Cuyahoga County students (students in greater Cleveland) receiving state-funded scholarships to attend private schools has skyrocketed this year after state lawmakers expanded a voucher program, but state data suggests that doesn’t necessarily mean more kids have opted out of public schools. Across the county’s 31 districts, the number of students receiving tuition payments in the EdChoice-Expansion scholarship… has increased nearly four-fold, from 2,500 students last year to nearly 9,200 this year. Those districts, however, have not seen a corresponding loss in student population, indicating that most of the families newly benefiting from the vouchers were already enrolled in private schools rather than fleeing a school district.”
Hancock profiles, for example, three of Cleveland’s middle and upper income suburbs where the vouchers now serve as a tuition-reimbursement entitlement for families of students already paying private school tuition: “Enrollment in Rocky River City School District fell by just 22 students between last year and this year, even though the number of kids receiving vouchers shot up from 16 to 309. In Bay Village City School District, there are 30 fewer students despite a voucher jump from 13 to 229. Westlake City School District has 19 fewer students; vouchers in the district spiked from 41 to 581.”
Hancock lists the ten Ohio public school districts with the largest growth in students accepting a voucher under Ohio’s huge expansion of school vouchers this year. Three are exurbs of Cleveland; one is a shared exurb of Cleveland and Akron; one is an exurb of Akron; one is an exurb of Columbus, and four are exurbs of Cincinnati. In every one of these districts, according to data from the Ohio Department of Education, the median income is far above the state’s median of $41,132.59. In Indian Hill, a Cincinnati suburb, the median income is $96,508.50. Median income in Hudson, part of suburban Cleveland and Akron, is $82,183.00, and in Olentangy, a Columbus exurb, median income is $79,892.50.
Why are the ten school districts with so many students taking vouchers for the first time all wealthy suburbs? Hancock explains: “because the legislature… removed income eligibility caps for EdChoice-Expansion. Last year, the cap was 250% of the federal poverty level for a scholarship, or $75,000 for a family of four. Now there are no income caps, although families only get partial scholarships when they earn above 450% of the poverty level, or above $135,000 for a family of four.”
Hancock adds that the state is giving away a whole lot of money in each voucher: $6,167 for grades K-8 and $8,407 for grades 9-12. Thomas S. Poetter, a professor at Miami University of Ohio, who recently edited the new Vouch for This!, adds that the vouchers are worth more than the state school funding formula has established as the base cost public schools are expected to spend per student—the amount that includes the state and local contributions required by the school funding formula. Poetter writes: “(T)he fact remains that the state will be spending more per pupil on individual children in private high schools with its voucher program… than it will for individual public school students across the state… That has been the case for nearly the entire life of the EdChoice ‘Scholarship’ program (it’s a voucher program) but it really hits home with the high figures coming at us in the new budget. And just think of all that could be done in our public schools to better our offerings… if we weren’t sending more than $1 billion a year into private hands to be used in ways that none of us would ever approve of in public education….” (Vouch for This!, pp. 130-131)
Hancock quotes Troy McIntosh from the Ohio Christian Education Network and the Center for Christian Virtue enthusing about the new voucher expansion. She quotes Senator Andy Brenner, Chair of the Ohio Senate Education Committee, explaining that families ought to get the vouchers because they are paying taxes and therefore ought to get a personal reward for their children. She adds that after the voucher expansion, “the Catholic Diocese of Columbus is looking to potentially build schools in areas that currently don’t have a Catholic school.”
Hancock’s article omits one urgently important issue with Ohio’s new voucher expansion: over half the state’s counties are rural and entirely lack a private school where students might potentially carry a voucher. The expansion of private school tuition vouchers will shift the distribution of money from the state’s school foundation budget away from the state’s rural school districts because private school tuition vouchers can be used only by students in areas where private schools exist—places with larger and more concentrated populations. In a report last year for the Ohio League of Women Voters (You should scroll down and then download report.), Susan Kaeser explains: “Most of the public school population is concentrated in Ohio’s 8 largest urban counties, and so is the private school population. The 8 largest counties have 46% of the public school population and 71% of the private school students… Public education is the only consistently available education choice in Ohio’s 46 small counties, those with less than 8,000 public school students… Private schools across these 46 counties serve a total of only about 7,000 students.” “Rural taxpayers underwrite private choice in the state—but not where they live.”
Hancock reminds readers that “over 130 public school districts… are suing the state over the constitutionality of the vouchers.” Coincidentally on Sunday, the Plain Dealer also published a commentary by William Phillis, Executive Director of the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding, which is a co-plaintiff with the public school districts in the Vouchers Hurt Ohio lawsuit. Phillis provides the history, beginning in 1819, of Ohio’s efforts to establish and support public education. Our system of public common schools, Phillis reminds us, is protected by the language of the 1851 Ohio Constitution in Article VI, section 2: “Convention delegates crafted language that required the legislature to secure, by taxation, a thorough and efficient system of common schools and clarified that religious sects or other sects shall not control any part of school funds of the state.”
The school voucher explosion for the wealthy that was slipped into Ohio’s FY 2024-2025 state budget last summer epitomizes what we were warned about last year in the conclusion to The School Voucher Illusion, edited by experts Kevin Welner, Gary Orfield, and Luis A. Huerta and published by the Teachers College Press: “As currently structured, voucher policies in the United States are unlikely to help the students they claim to support. Instead, these policies have often served as a facade for the far less popular reality of funding relatively advantaged (and largely White) families, many of whom already attended—or would attend—private schools without subsidies. Although vouchers are presented as helping parents choose schools, often the arrangements permit the private schools to do the choosing… Advocacy that began with a focus on equity must not become a justification for increasing inequity. Today’s voucher policies have, by design, created growing financial commitments of taxpayer money to serve a constituency of the relatively advantaged that is redefining their subsidies as rights—often in jurisdictions where neighborhood public schools do not have the resources they need.” (The School Voucher Illusion: Exposing the Pretense of Equity, p. 290)
The political landscape of American politics gets weirder by the moment, if you pay attention to what one former President is saying on the campaign trail.
In a campaign appearance in Richmond, Virginia, Trump promised that “I will not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate or a mask mandate.” He is obviously appealing to the anti-vaxxers who refused to take the vaccine that Trump himself rushed to completion and that Trump and his family did take while in the White House.
Assuming that he is serious about his threat, he is promising to eliminate public health measures that are now the law in every state. It is now commonplace (and has been for decades) to require children to be vaccinated for various diseases before they enter school—measles, chickenpox, mumps, polio, diphtheria, etc.
What immunizations are required for a child to attend school in Florida?
5 doses DTaP (diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis).
4-5 doses Polio (Kindergarten). …
2 doses MMR (measles-mumps-rubella).
3 doses Hepatitis B.
2 doses Varicella (chickenpox).
Despite this mandate, Florida is currently experiencing an outbreak of measles. The surgeon general of the state has told parents that it’s up to them to decide whether to send their sick child to school.
A number of contagious diseases are reappearing, according to WebMD. Among them are tuberculosis, scarlet fever, measles, mumps, and whooping cough. Some come back because the vaccines are not as effective as the bacteria evolves, and some return because people are not vaccinated.
Hiltzik’s column is titled: “Trump and RFK Jr. want to make the world safe again for polio and measles. You should be terrified.”
People will die from diseases that were conquered by science decades ago.
Hiltzik wrote:
Trump’s words elicited febrile cheers from his Virginia audience, which may be a sign of what I earlier identified as the phenomenon of “herd stupidity” connected with the anti-vaccine movement.
Did these people have any conception of what they were cheering? (We can assume that Trump didn’t.) Did they cotton on to the fact that Trump was advocating depriving all Virginia public and private K-12 schools, nursery schools, child care centers and home schools of federal funding?
We know that would be the consequence of his pledge, because we know that Virginia requires children attending any of those institutions to be vaccinated against 15 diseases, with boosters where appropriate. Virginia’s mandated schedule, like those of every other state, follows the recommendations of the CDC, which calls for some vaccinations within a month or two of birth.
Trump issued his ukase against vaccine mandates right after declaring at the Richmond rally that he would “sign a new executive order to cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, transgender insanity, and any other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content onto our children,” thus covering pretty much the entire right-wing culture battleground, almost all of which is based on manufactured outrage.
In context, Trump’s opposition to vaccine mandates falls into the category of glorifying individual “freedom” over the communal interest. As I’ve written before, opposing vaccine mandates as a substitute for opposing vaccination itself is a fundamentally incoherent position — little more than garden variety small-government Republican ideology almost invariably invoked to protect the interests of the “haves” over the “have-nots.”
What makes it incoherent is that mandates do work. They’ve saved the lives of millions of schoolchildren who would otherwise be exposed to deadly diseases at school and play.
Yesterday was a crucial election for the future of public schools in Texas. The Republican primaries pitted civic-minded Republicans against challengers committed to vouchers and endorsed by Governor Greg Abbott.
Abbott received the biggest single contribution in state history from Pennsylvania billionaire Jeff Yass. The gift came with a purpose: pass a voucher law.
Governor Abbott has been in charge since 2015 and until now, he never cared much about vouchers. But the money came pouring in from evangelical oil-and-gas billionaires like Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks, as well as out-of-state billionaires like Yass and Betsy DeVos. Suddenly, vouchers was the Governor’s top priority. He toured Christian schools around the state to promote them.
When the vote came in the Legislature, a bloc of rural Republicans in the House opposed vouchers. They said their community loved their public schools; they didn’t want to undermine them. Their public schools are the heart of their community and their local economy.
Abbott offered new money for public schools and teacher pay raises, but only if the Legislature approved vouchers. The rural Republicans (and every Democrat) said no.
Abbott said he would call special sessions until the House passed a voucher bill and he did. He called four special sessions. They said no to vouchers. He threatened to run primaries against them and to replace them with legislators who supported vouchers. They stood firm.
Yesterday some of those rural Republicans were defeated by Abbott and about $100 million in billionaire money. Some prevailed. Some are in run-offs.
Pastor Charles Johnson of Pastors for Texas Children (PTC) is a stalwart friend of public schools. He and his network of pastors across the state understand the importance of well-funded public schools and well-paid teachers.
PTC just released this update on the Republican primaries.
We have mixed emotions as we reflect on last night’s outcomes of the Texas House of Representatives races. While we may not have achieved the sweeping results we had hoped for, we are grateful for the victories your work and witness achieved!
Of the 16 House Republican primary races we focused on, we enjoyed six victories and suffered six losses. Four of our Republican friends face runoff elections.
The path to positive change is often fraught with challenges, and setbacks are an inevitable part of any endeavor. Though we may not have won every race last night, we are grateful for the re-election of six of our strongest Republican allies in the House and look forward to working hard to re-elect four more in the runoffs.
We find hope and encouragement in the upcoming May runoffs. These runoffs are crucial to fighting taxpayer-funded vouchers here in Texas. We will continue to fight to ensure that the Texas Public Schools voice we advocate for is heard loud and clear. Your continued support is crucial, and together, we will forge a brighter future for the children of Texas.
We want to express our gratitude for your unwavering support throughout this journey. We remain steadfast in our commitment to championing our Texas public schools, teachers, parents, and, of course, the 5.5 million children in our Texas public schools.
Let us stand united, resilient in the face of these challenges, and hopeful for the positive outcomes that the runoffs may bring. The journey may be long, but with your dedication and support, we can make a lasting impact on the lives of children and families in our beloved community.
A homeschooling mother with extremist views upset the establishment incumbent for the position of state superintendent of public schools. The incumbent had a 10-1 financial advantage but still lost.
Ultra-conservative challenger Michele Morrow defeated incumbent Catherine Truitt in the Republican primary for state superintendent of public instruction.
With 99% of precincts reporting, Morrow has 52% of the vote to 48% for Truitt, who is the only incumbent Council of State member who lost to a primary challenger. Truitt had entered the Republican primary with a major fundraising lead and the endorsement of many prominent GOP elected officials.
Morrow will face off against former Guilford County Superintendent Mo Green, who has nearly two-thirds of the vote in the Democratic primary…
Truitt, 53, was elected superintendent in 2020. The former classroom teacher has political credentials such as having been senior education adviser to then GOP Gov. Pat McCrory.
Truitt’s endorsements included U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx; state Sens. Phil Berger and Ralph Hise; and state Reps. John Bell, Destin Hall and Jason Saine. Truitt had raised $327,003 compared to $37,764 for Morrow.
But Morrow and her supporters portrayed Truitt has being a liberal, pointing to how she had been supported by U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis, who is unpopular with many conservative Republicans.
Morrow, 52, is a home-school parent and former missionary who is an activist working with groups such as Liberty First Grassroots and the Pavement Education Project.
Morrow was among the supporters of then President Donald Trump who protested in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, but says she did not storm the Capitol Building.
She says her plan is to “Make Academics Great Again” in North Carolina by prioritizing scholastics and safety over Critical Race Theory and DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion). Morrow has accused public schools of indoctrinating students, “teaching children to hate our country” and training students in “transgender theory.”
If elected, Morrow says she will “make sound basic moral instruction priority number one.” Morrow also promises that “you better believe that our teachers will be well versed in the true history of our great nation.”
Nebraska will have a voucher referendum this fall unless courts keep them off the ballot. Friends of public schools gathered way more than enough signatures to get a state referendum. The top state election official certified that they met the qualifications.
Nebraska’s top election official has ruled that voters will get to decide this year whether to repeal a law that gives taxpayer money for private school scholarships.
But both Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen and state Sen. Lou Ann Linehan, who authored the school choice law and sought to have the repeal effort kept off the ballot, acknowledge that the courts will likely ultimately decide if the repeal question makes it onto November’s ballot.
Evnen said in a news release late Thursday that he consulted state law and previous state attorney general opinions before concluding that the referendum question is legal and will appear on the November ballot “unless otherwise ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction.”
Peter Greene highly recommends the “60 Minutes” segment about book banning and Moms for Liberty. He pins them on the essential hypocrisy at the heart of their campaign: the M4L asserts the right to deny certain books to all children in a school or a district, thus denying the “liberty” of parents who disagree with them. There is a world of difference between a parent saying “I don’t want my child to read that book” and a parent saying “ No child in that school should be allowed to read that book.”
If you have not seen the 60 Minutes piece on book banning, here it is. Go ahead and watch; it will be thirteen and a half minutes well spent.
There are several things on display here, not the least of which is a school district taking a sensible students-first, parents-involved approach to the issue of difficult books.
Reporter Scott Pelley gets right to the heart of several issues. The difference between giving parents the tools to control what their own children can read (something the district also provides in spades) and trying to control what other parents can let their children read. The outrage-enhancing technique of treating isolated mistakes as proof of some widespread conspiracy.
In the midst of it all, the Moms for Liberty, with Tiffany Justice and Tina Descovich finally seen in the footage from an interview they sat for way back in October of 2023.
The piece is tough on them. The parents that are set up to represent the district are Republican, conservative, combat veterans. Pelley in repeated voice overs points out that the Moms are evasive and avoid answering question but instead retreating to their talking points (he does not point out that they are seasoned political coms professionals, but he doesn’t portray them as cookie-baking domestics, either). Some of the talking points were so six months ago. “We don’t co-parent with the government,” said the women whose demands include forcing the government to help them with the part of parenting that involves keeping an eye on what your children read and watch.
Their PR firm (Cavalry Strategies) was on the case this morning, emailing out the M4L transcript that includes the part that CBS didn’t include, and offering the duo for press interviews to tell their story. It’s an odd choice, because the stuff they want you to see is just more of the non-answering that CBS showed. That and they are really, really big sad that CBS chose not to air them reading the Really Dirty Parts or Certain Books. This remains one of their weirdest arguments–since this part of this book is too objectionable to read in certain situations, it must be too objectionable to be found in any situation. Like, it’s not okay for me pee on the steps of City Hall at noon, so it must not be okay for me to pee anywhere, ever.
But the question that Pelley asked was a really, really good one. The Moms led into it by saying that although they love teachers so very much, there are some “rogue teachers” out there (I can hear the ty-shirts being printed already). “Parents send their children to school to be educated, not indoctrinated into ideology.”
And so Pelley asked the obvious question– “What ideology are the children being indoctrinated into?”
And the Moms wouldn’t answer. The extended answer in their email (and some tweets) suggests that they’re talking about gender and sex stuff, and their go to example is telling five year olds that genders can be changed).
The answer remains unclear. What exactly is the objection? What is the problem? What does “gender ideology” even mean? Because the harder I stare at it, the more it seems as if the problem is acknowledging that LGNTQ persons exist.
But in the MAGA Mom playbook, that’s not it as all, which brings us Pelley’s other fruitless attempt to get the Moms to explain what they mean by all the “groomer” language that they use on their own social media. They really didn’t want to talk about that, though they did insist that they like gay folks just fine. They didn’t attempt to address the groomer question in their responses to the 60 Minutes piece. Perhaps that’s because their premise makes no sense.
But if you boil it all down, this is what you get.
If you acknowledge that LGBTQ persons exist in front of children, then you are grooming those children to become LGBTQ.
Part of the premise for that is an old one– if you believe that nobody is born That Way, that nobody is LGBTQ by nature, then you must believe that all LGBTQ persons are recruited.
But to jump from there to the notion that simply acknowledging that LGBTQ persons exist must only be about recruiting–that’s a hell of a leap. And it leads to the worst culture panic impulse, which is to erase those persons, to treat them as if their very existence must be a dirty secret.
And because acknowledging them is equated with grooming other children, this becomes the worst brand of othering. To make it okay to attack the Other, you have to establish that the Other represents a threat, that you need to defend yourself against them. And that makes violence against them okay.
So when Ryan Walters says that he’s not playing “woke gender games,” he’s saying that he won’t acknowledge that LGBTQ persons exist, and that anyone who does acknowledge they exist is trying to attack children and groom them and so that “woke mob” is attacking, and so it’s okay to attack back. When the Lt. Governor and gubernatorial candidate calls LGBTQ persons “filth,” particularly in the context of talking about them in school at all ever, that message is pretty clear.
Pelley’s unanswered questions point us at the nuance missing in the Moms for Liberty outrage and panic factory, the nuance that recognizes that reasonable intelligent people can disagree about the value of certain books. In the real world, there’s a huge difference between showing six year olds graphic depictions of the ways one can use a penis and a non-graphic depiction of LGBTQ persons. There’s a vast gulf between grooming some small child for sexual abuse and simply acknowledging there are some LGBTQ persons in the world (and possibly in the classroom or the homes of class members). There’s a planet-seized difference between saying “LGBTQ persons are not extraordinary or unnatural” and saying “You should become an LGBTQ person.” And yet, in the Moms for Liberty universe, there is no difference between any of those things.
It’s very hard to distinguish between the opportunists and the truly panicked on this issue. The Heritage Foundations Project 2025 seems like an opportunist’s political project, but it is also shot through with what seems like a sincere and extreme LGBTQ panic. The Ziegler scandal deserves attention because it suggests that one founding M4L member is not all that freaked out about non-het sex.
But at a certain level, it doesn’t matter whether all this LGBTQ panic is sincere or not, because as the toxic sludge filters through the culture, some people feel justified, even encouraged, in violence and mistreatment of actual human beings. No amount of carefully refined talking points will change that; only the kind of nuanced, complex conversation that doesn’t get you a special seat at the MAGA table.
The encouraging part of the 60 Minutes piece is that it shows how ordinary folks can actually have some of those conversations. Over a hundred citizens came together to have some thoughtful consideration about the list of 97 books that were marked for removal, and they kept 92 of them. Imagine that.
Diane Ravitch's blog 