ReportWire

Tag: race

  • Nancy Pelosi, the race for governor and other California Democratic Party convention

    [ad_1]

    Hundreds of people gathered in San Francisco for the California Democratic Party convention this weekend. The purpose of the convention is for the party to determine who it will endorse in upcoming statewide races in California’s primary election June 2. It’s the first state party convention in nearly a decade that has no clear front runner for California governor. Gavin Newsom terms out at the end of this year, and the field to replace him is full of Democrats who either currently or used to serve in public office.In order to win the party’s endorsement, one of the candidates needs to get 60% of the vote from delegates, but none of the candidates reached that threshold according to the endorsement vote results posted Saturday night. Results showed Congressman Eric Swalwell with the most votes at 24% followed by former State Controller Betty Yee with 17.3%. The results are expected to be finalized Sunday. Other candidates eligible for the party’s endorsement are former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, State Superintendent Tony Thurmond, former Congresswoman Katie Porter, former Assemblyman Ian Calderon, former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and billionaire businessman Tom Steyer.Each gave a four-minute speech to the convention hall full of delegates on Saturday afternoon. The loudest applause could be heard for Swalwell, who has an edge in polling over the other Democratic candidates. “Raise your right hand if you think this country and California are in trouble,” Swalwell said to the crowd as many raised their hands. “That’s why I’m running for governor.” Party officials said San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan got into the race too late and missed the deadline in order to be eligible for an endorsement. As a new crop of politicians fights for higher office, an iconic veteran of the party’s leadership is preparing to step away. On Saturday night, the party hosted a dinner for former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is not running for reelection to Congress this year. “I’m always very grateful and very proud of our golden state of California,” Pelosi said. “We have a history of resilience and it’s really a model of the rest of the country… There have been concerns about us, but as I say, that’s their problem.” See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Hundreds of people gathered in San Francisco for the California Democratic Party convention this weekend.

    The purpose of the convention is for the party to determine who it will endorse in upcoming statewide races in California’s primary election June 2.

    It’s the first state party convention in nearly a decade that has no clear front runner for California governor. Gavin Newsom terms out at the end of this year, and the field to replace him is full of Democrats who either currently or used to serve in public office.

    In order to win the party’s endorsement, one of the candidates needs to get 60% of the vote from delegates, but none of the candidates reached that threshold according to the endorsement vote results posted Saturday night.

    Results showed Congressman Eric Swalwell with the most votes at 24% followed by former State Controller Betty Yee with 17.3%. The results are expected to be finalized Sunday.

    Other candidates eligible for the party’s endorsement are former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, State Superintendent Tony Thurmond, former Congresswoman Katie Porter, former Assemblyman Ian Calderon, former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and billionaire businessman Tom Steyer.

    Each gave a four-minute speech to the convention hall full of delegates on Saturday afternoon. The loudest applause could be heard for Swalwell, who has an edge in polling over the other Democratic candidates.

    “Raise your right hand if you think this country and California are in trouble,” Swalwell said to the crowd as many raised their hands. “That’s why I’m running for governor.”

    Party officials said San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan got into the race too late and missed the deadline in order to be eligible for an endorsement.

    As a new crop of politicians fights for higher office, an iconic veteran of the party’s leadership is preparing to step away.

    On Saturday night, the party hosted a dinner for former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is not running for reelection to Congress this year.

    “I’m always very grateful and very proud of our golden state of California,” Pelosi said. “We have a history of resilience and it’s really a model of the rest of the country… There have been concerns about us, but as I say, that’s their problem.”

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Democrats’ fear rising that too many candidates in governor’s race could lead to a Republican victory

    [ad_1]

    Leaders of the California Democratic Party, along with liberal activists and loyal power brokers, are openly expressing fear that their crowded field of candidates running for governor may splinter the vote and open the door to a surprise Republican victory in November.

    Because of those concerns, the Democrats lagging at the bottom of the pack are being urged to drop out of the race to ensure that the party’s political dominance in statewide elections survives the 2026 election.

    “California Democrats are prepared to do what’s required,” state party chairman Rusty Hicks told reporters at the California Democratic Party’s annual convention on Friday. “We are ready and willing and able to do what’s required … to ensure we have a strong candidate coming out of the primary to do what’s required in November.”

    Nine prominent Democrats are running to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, compared with two top GOP candidates, and could divide the Democratic electorate enough that the two Republicans could receive the most votes in the June primary and advance to the November election. Under California’s “jungle primary” system, the top two vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.

    Hicks was deferential to the Democratic candidates who have long served in public office and have compelling personal tales and the experience to take the helm of the state. But he said there is the harsh political reality that a viable candidate needs to raise an enormous amount of money to have a winning campaign in a state of 23.1 million registered voters and some of the most expensive media markets in the nation.

    The party, its allies and the candidates themselves have a “collective commitment to ensuring we do not see a Republican elected [for governor],” Hicks said.

    While Hicks and other party leaders did not publicly name the candidates who ought to leave the race, among the candidates lagging in the polls are state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, former state Controller Betty Yee, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon.

    Democratic voters vastly outnumber the number of registered Republicans in the state, and no Republican has been elected to statewide office since 2006.

    But given the sprawling field of gubernatorial candidates, the lack of a clear front-runner and the state’s unique primary system, the race appears up for grabs. According to an average of the most recent opinion polls, conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco — both Republicans — are tied for first place, according to Real Clear Politics. Each received the support of 15.5% of voters. The top Democrat, Rep. Eric Swalwell of Dublin, Calif., was backed by 12.5%.

    In 2012, Republicans finished in first and second place in the race for a San Bernardino County congressional district — despite Democrats having a solid edge in voter registration. The four Democrats running for the seat split the vote, opening the door for a victory by GOP Rep. Gary Miller. Pete Aguilar, one of the Democrats who lost in the primary, went on to win that seat in 2014 and has served in Congress ever since.

    Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) on Friday pushed back at the fears that two Republicans will win the top two gubernatorial spots in June.

    “That’s not going to happen,” she said in an interview after speaking at a young Democrats’ reception. “And everything that you should know about the Democrats this year is we are unified. As I say, our diversity is our strength, our unity is our power. And everybody knows that there’s too much at stake.”

    However, the scenario has prompted a cross section of the typically fractious party to unite behind the belief the field must shrink, whether by candidates’ choice or through pressure.

    Jodi Hicks, the leader of Planned Parenthood’s California operations, said that the organization is laser-focused on congressional races, but having two Republican gubernatorial candidates “would be nothing short of devastating.”

    “We have not weighed in on the governor’s race, but we are paying close attention to whether this comes to play, and whether or not we do decide to weigh in and make sure that doesn’t happen,” she said.

    Newsom and legislative Democrats have tried to buffer the massive federal funding cuts to reproductive care. A November election with two Republicans on the gubernatorial ballot would eliminate a key partner in Sacramento, and could affect turnout in down-ballot congressional and legislative races.

    “A top-two Republican [race] would certainly have dire consequences for the midterm battle and to the governor’s office,” Jodi Hicks said.

    Lorena Gonzalez, the leader of California Federation of Labor Unions, noted that her organization’s endorsement process begins on Tuesday.

    “I think we are going to have some pretty honest discussions with candidates about their individual paths and where they are,” she said. “They’re all great candidates, so many of them are really good folks. But it’s starting to get to be that time.”

    She expects the field to begin to thin in the coming days and weeks.

    The conversation went beyond party leaders, taking place among delegates such as Gregory Hutchins, an academic labor researcher from Riverside.

    “My goal at the convention, it’s not necessarily that the party coalesces around one particular candidate, but more, this is a test to see what candidates have a level of support that they can mount a successful campaign,” said the 29-year-old, who said he hopes to see some candidates drop out after the weekend.

    “Am I concerned long term that [a top-two Republican runoff] could be a thing? Yes and no,” he said “I’m not concerned that we’re not going to solve this problem before the primary, but I do think we need to start getting serious about, ‘We need to solve this problem soon.’”

    Not everyone agreed.

    Tim Paulson, a San Francisco Democrat who supports Yee, called efforts to push people out of the race “preemptive disqualification.”

    “This is nothing but scare tactics to get people out of the race,” he said. “This is still a vibrant primary. Nobody knows who the front-runner is yet.”

    Bob Galemmo, 71, countered that many people did not believe Donald Trump would be elected president in 2016 and fears two Republicans could advance to the general election.

    “You should never say never,” he said. “If we could get down to like four or five [candidates], that would be helpful.”

    The efforts have already begun.

    RL Miller, the chair of the state Democratic Party’s environmental caucus, said Yee ought to drop out.

    Yee, “who is at the bottom of the polls, needs to be taking a good long look at whether she is serving the party or being selfish by staying in the race,” Miller said.

    Yee, a former state party vice chair, pushed back forcefully, saying pressure to drop out of the race “would just be undemocratic.”

    “First of all, I’ve served this party for a long time. I don’t do it out of selfishness, by any means,” she said at a Saturday gathering where she provided breakfast burritos to delegates. “But I’ll just say this — the race is wide open.”

    Yee‘s campaign manager noted that the largest group of voters is still undecided, and the candidate said no one has asked her directly to exit the race, but that someone started a rumor a month or two ago that she was going to drop out and run for insurance commissioner instead.

    “I’m not dropping out, and I don’t think any candidate should go out,” Yee said.

    Calderon said Swalwell had urged him to get out of the race.

    Calderon defended staying in the race to try to reach undecided voters during a gubernatorial forum at the Commonwealth Club on Friday.

    “I stay very consistent in that 1 to 3% range,” he joked. “But my challenge is access to resources and visibility, which is something that could change within a day with the right backing and support.”

    Swalwell and his campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta, Nicole Nixon

    Source link

  • Commentary: Fix the potholes or fight the power? That’s the choice facing California’s next governor

    [ad_1]

    You may have missed it, what with President Trump’s endless pyrotechnics, but California voters will decide in November who succeeds Gavin Newsom, the highest-profile governor since the Terminator returned to Hollywood.

    Unfortunately for those attempting to civically engage, the current crop of contenders is, shall we say, less than enthralling.

    In alphabetical order (because there is seriously no prohibitive front-runner), the major candidates are Xavier Becerra, Chad Bianco, Ian Calderon, Steve Hilton, Matt Mahan, Katie Porter, John Slavet, Tom Steyer, Eric Swalwell, Tony Thurmond, Antonio Villaraigosa and Betty Yee.

    Whew! (Pause to catch breath.)

    Armed with that knowledge, you can now go out and win yourself a few bar bets by asking someone to name, say, even two of those running.

    Meantime, fear not. Your friendly columnists Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria have surveyed the field, weighed the odds, pondered California’s long history and concluded … they have absolutely no clue what will happen in the June 2 primary, much less who’ll take the oath of office come next January.

    Here, they discuss the race that has Californians sitting on neither pins nor needles.

    Chabria: Mark, I do this for a living and I’m having trouble summoning up any interest in this race — yet, anyway.

    Part of my problem is that national events are so all-consuming and fast-moving that it’s hard to worry about potholes. I admit, I appreciate that our White House-contending governor is fighting the big fight. But remind me again, what’s a governor supposed to do?

    Barabak: End homelessness. Elevate our public schools to first-class rank. Make housing and college tuition affordable. Eliminate crime. End disease and poverty. Put a chicken in every pot. Make pigs fly and celestial angels sing. And then, in their second year …

    Seriously, there’s a pretty large gap between what voters would like to see happen and what a governor — any governor — can plausibly deliver. That said, if our next chief executive can help bring about meaningful improvement in just a few of those areas, pigs and angels excepted, I’d venture to say a goodly number of Californians would be pleased.

    Broadly speaking, my sense when talking to voters is they want our next governor to push back on Trump and his most egregious excesses. But not as a means of raising their national profile or positioning themselves for a run at the White House. And not to the exclusion of bettering their lives by paying attention to the nitty and the gritty, like making housing and higher education more readily available and, yes, fixing potholes.

    Chabria: All that is fair enough. As the mom of two teens, I’d especially like to see our university system be more affordable and accessible, so we all have our personal priorities. Let’s agree to this starting point: The new governor can’t just chew gum and walk. She or he must be able to eat a full lunch while running.

    But so far, candidates haven’t had their policy positions break through to a big audience, state-focused or not — and many of them share broadly similar positions. Let’s look at the bits of daylight that separate them because, Republicans aside, there aren’t canyon-size differences among the many candidates.

    San José Mayor Matt Mahan, the newest entry in the race, is attempting to position himself as a “can’t-we-all-just-get-along” centrist. How do you think that will go over with voters?

    Barabak: You’re having me tiptoe uncomfortably close to the Make A Prediction Zone, which I assiduously avoid. As I’ve said before, I’m smart enough to know what I don’t know. (Many readers will doubtless question the underlying premise of the former if not the latter part of that statement.)

    I think there is at least a potential for Mahan to tap into a desire among voters to lower the hostilities just a bit and ease up on our constant partisan war-footing.

    You might not know it if you marinate in social media, or watch the political shout-fest shows where, as in nature, the loudest voices carry. But there are a great many people working two or even three jobs, ferrying their kids to soccer practice, worrying about paying their utility and doctor bills, caring for elderly parents or struggling in other ways to keep their heads above water. And they’re less captivated by the latest snappy clap-back on TikTok than looking for help dealing with the many challenges they face.

    I was struck by something Katie Porter said when we recently sat down for a conversation in San Francisco. The former Orange County congresswoman can denigrate Trump with the best of ‘em. But she said, “I am very leery of anyone who does not acknowledge that we had problems and policy challenges long before Donald Trump ever raised his orange head on the political horizon.”

    California’s homelessness and affordability crises were years in the making, she noted, and need to be addressed as such.

    I heard Antonio Villaraigosa suggest something similar in last week‘s gubernatorial debate, when the former Los Angeles mayor noted the state has spent billions of dollars in recent years trying to drastically reduce homelessness with, at best, middling results. “We cannot be afraid to look in the mirror,” he said.

    That suggests to me Mahan is not the only candidate who appreciates that simply saying “Trump = Bad” over and over is not what voters want to hear.

    Chabria: Certainly potholes and high electricity bills existed before Trump. But if the midterms don’t favor Democrats, the next governor will probably face a generational challenge to protect the civil rights of residents of this diverse state. It’s not about liking or disliking Trump, but ensuring that our governor has a plan if attacks on immigrants, the LBGTQ+ community and citizens in general grow worse.

    I do think this will matter to voters — but I agree with you that candidates can’t simply rage against Trump. They have to offer some substance.

    Porter, Swalwell and Becerra, who have the most national experience and could be expected to articulate that sort of vision, haven’t done much other than to commit to the fight. Steyer and Thurmond want to abolish ICE, which a governor couldn’t do. Mahan has said focusing on state policy is the best offense.

    I don’t think this has to be a charisma-driven vision, which is what Newsom has so effectively offered. But it needs to bring resoluteness in a time of fear, which none of the candidates to my mind have been able to project so far.

    But this all depends on election results in November. If Democrats take Congress and are able to exert a check to this terrible imbalance, then bring on the asphalt and fix the roads. I think a lot of what voters want from a governor won’t fully be known until after November.

    Barabak: The criticism of this collective field is that it’s terminally boring, as if we’re looking to elect a stand-up comic, a chanteuse or a juggler. I mean, this is the home of Hollywood! Isn’t it the birthright of every California citizen to be endlessly entertained?

    At least that’s what the pundits and political know-it-alls, stifling yawns as they constantly refresh their feeds on Bluesky or X, would have you believe.

    Voters elected Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor — that’s two movie stars in the state’s 175-year history — and, from the way the state is often perceived, you’d think celebrity megawattage is one of the main prerequisites for a chief executive.

    But if you look back, California has seen a lot more George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson and Gray Davis types, which is to say bland-persona governors whom no one would mistake for box-office gold.

    It seems to me no coincidence that Schwarzenegger, who arrived as a political novelty, was replaced by Jerry Brown, who was as politically tried-and-true as they come. That political pendulum never stops swinging.

    Which suggests voters will be looking for someone less like our gallivanting, movie matinee governor and someone more inclined to keep their head down in Sacramento and focus on the state and its needs.

    Who will that be? I wouldn’t wage a nickel trying to guess. Would you care to?

    Chabria: I certainly don’t care to predict, but I’ll say this: We may not need or get another Terminator. But one of these candidates needs to put some pepper flakes in the paste if they want to break out of the pack.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Z. Barabak, Anita Chabria

    Source link

  • Councilmember Nithya Raman to run for L.A. mayor, challenging onetime ally Karen Bass

    [ad_1]

    Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman is running for mayor, shaking up the field of candidates one final time.

    Raman said she will challenge Mayor Karen Bass, her onetime ally, campaigning on issues of housing and homelessness, transparency and “safety in our streets.”

    In an interview, Raman called Bass “an icon” and someone she deeply admires. But she said the city needs a change agent to address its problems.

    “I have deep respect for Mayor Bass. We’ve worked closely together on my biggest priorities and her biggest priorities, and there’s significant alignment there,” said Raman, who lives in Silver Lake. “But over the last few months in particular, I’ve really begun to feel like unless we have some big changes in how we do things in Los Angeles, that the things we count on are not going to function anymore.”

    Saturday’s announcement — hours before the noon filing deadline for the June 2 primary election — capped a chaotic week in L.A. politics, with candidates and would-be candidates dropping in and out of the race to challenge Bass, who is seeking a second four-year term.

    Raman would immediately pose a formidable challenge to Bass. She was the first council member to be elected with support from the Democratic Socialists of America, which scored an enormous victory last fall with the election of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

    Councilmember Nithya Raman jumps in the race for mayor, challenging former ally Karen Bass in the June primary.

    (Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

    At the same time, Raman has deep ties to leaders in the YIMBY movement, who have pushed for the city to boost housing production by upzoning single-family neighborhoods and rewriting Measure ULA, the so-called mansion tax, which applies to property sales of $5.3 million or more.

    Raman’s eleventh-hour announcement caps what has been the most turbulent candidate filing period for an L.A. mayoral election in at least a generation. She launched her bid less than a day after another political heavyweight, L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, decided against a run.

    Until Raman’s surprise entry, the field had seemed to be clear of big-name challengers. Former L.A. schools superintendent Austin Beutner ended his campaign on Thursday, citing the death of his 22-year-old daughter. That same day, real estate developer Rick Caruso reaffirmed his decision not to run.

    Bass campaign spokesperson Douglas Herman did not immediately provide comment.

    Raman’s announcement comes as Bass continues to face sharp criticism over the city’s handling of the Palisades fire, which killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes. Unlike some of the candidates, Raman has not publicly criticized Bass about the city’s preparation for, or response to, the disaster.

    Bass, 72, faces more than two dozen opponents from across the political spectrum.

    Reality TV star Spencer Pratt, a Republican, has received praise from an array of Trump supporters, including Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, of Florida. Pratt has focused heavily on the city’s handling of the fire, which destroyed his home.

    Spencer Pratt poses for a portrait in Pacific Palisades.

    Spencer Pratt poses for a portrait in Pacific Palisades.

    (Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

    Democratic socialist Rae Huang is running against the mayor from her political left. Huang has called for more public housing and for a reduction in the number of police officers, with the cost savings poured into other city services.

    Brentwood tech entrepreneur Adam Miller, who has described himself as a lifelong Democrat, said the city is on a downward trajectory and needs stronger management. The 56-year-old nonprofit executive plans to tap his personal wealth to jump-start his campaign.

    Also in the race is Asaad Alnajjar, an employee of the Bureau of Street Lighting who sits on the Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council. Alnajjar has already lent his campaign $80,000.

    At City Hall, Raman’s entrance into the mayor’s race is a bombshell, particularly given her relationship with Bass.

    In December 2022, not long after taking office, Bass launched her Inside Safe program, which moves homeless people indoors, in Raman’s district.

    Two years later, while running for reelection, Raman prominently featured Bass on at least a dozen of her campaign mailers and door hangers. Raman’s campaign produced a video ad that heavily excerpted Bass’ remarks endorsing her at a Sherman Oaks get-out-the-vote rally.

    Raman, whose district stretches from Silver Lake to Reseda, ultimately won reelection with 50.7% of the vote. In the years that followed, she continued to praise Bass’ leadership.

    In November, while appearing at a DSA election night watch party for Mamdani, Raman told The Times that Bass is “the most progressive mayor we’ve ever had in L.A.”

    Last month, Bass formally announced that she had secured Raman’s endorsement, featuring her in a list of a dozen San Fernando Valley political leaders who backed her reelection campaign.

    Raman ran for office in 2020, promising to put in place stronger tenant protections and provide a more effective, humane approach to combating homelessness. On her campaign platform, she called for the transformation of the LAPD into a “much smaller, specialized armed force” — but never specified what exactly that would mean.

    A woman takes a photo with her phone at the C. Erwin Piper Technical Center on Saturday.

    A woman takes a photo with her phone at the C. Erwin Piper Technical Center on Saturday.

    (Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

    Since then, the LAPD has lost about 1,300 officers — a decrease of about 13%. The City Council has put in place new eviction protections for tenants, while also capping the size of rent increases in the city’s “rent stabilized” apartments, which were mostly built before October 1978.

    Raman does not face the same political risks as Horvath, who had already been running for reelection in her Westside and San Fernando Valley district. Horvath, had she run for mayor, would have had to forfeit her seat on the county Board of Supervisors.

    If Raman loses, she would still hold her council seat, since she does not face reelection until 2028.

    [ad_2]

    David Zahniser, Noah Goldberg

    Source link

  • Illinois Democratic hopefuls for US Senate agree Trump poses constitutional crisis but other differences emerge

    [ad_1]

    The three leading Democratic candidates vying for the March 17 primary nomination to the U.S. Senate agreed Thursday night the nation is facing a constitutional crisis and hurled invectives at President Donald Trump, with each arguing they would be best equipped to rein in his administration if elected to Washington.

    But in an hour-long debate, small yet distinct differences emerged among U.S. Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Schaumburg and Robin Kelly of Lynwood and Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton.

    Stratton repeated her lone call to “abolish” the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, while Krishnamoorthi called for ending “Trump’s ICE” and Kelly, who launched an effort to impeach U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, called for a complete overhaul of the department.

    But Stratton and Kelly each vowed not to vote to confirm any new Trump appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court, while Krishnamoorthi said he would seek intensive vetting of nominees. Stratton also called for lifting the current $7.25 an hour federal minimum wage to $25 an hour, while Kelly said $17 an hour was more politically realistic in getting through Congress, and Krishnamoorthi agreed.

    Krishanmoorthi was also the only one saying he supported term limits for members of Congress, while all three agreed there should be limits on the tenure of Supreme Court justices.

    The debate, held at ABC-7’s Loop studios and cospsonored by the station, Univision Chicago and the League of Women Voters of Illinois and of Chicago, was the second such forum among the three in 72 hours, following an event at the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics.

    The latest debate lacked much of the aggressiveness Stratton had shown at the previous forum, possibly because the rules did not allow candidates to follow up on what others had said.

    Stratton, the two-term running mate of Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker and who is backed by the governor, called Trump a “wannabe dictator” who “leads with bigotry and hatred.”

    “We have a president that is stomping on the Constitution, a president that doesn’t believe that he has to follow the rule of law. We have a president, and now a court system, oftentimes especially the Supreme Court, that is rubberstamping his authoritarian agenda,” Stratton said. She called for reforms at the nation’s highest court “because we don’t see the checks we need.”

    Krishnamoorthi said Congress needs to ban mid-decade redistricting, which he called a “chaos” that was pushed by Trump in Republican-led states to try to ensure the GOP’s continued House majority after the 2026 election.

    “We have to reform the pardon power because he’s decided to auction off pardons to the highest bidders,” Krishnamoorthi said. “In addition, we have to reform our tariff laws so that he can’t create tariff chaos and trade chaos. And then finally, we have to probably amend the Constitution and make it very clear that there is no third term for a president.”

    Kelly said Republicans in Congress “have ceded their power” to Trump and need to “slow him down, cut him off, hold him accountable, hold the minions accountable, like I’m trying to hold Kristi Noem accountable.”

    As was the case in their earlier debate, the aggressive tactics of federal agents carrying out Trump’s immigration enforcement were a major topic, though the administration has scaled back its confrontational operations in recent days amid negative political fallout following the fatal shootings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good by immigration enforcement agents in Minneapolis earlier this month.

    After the earlier debate, Stratton told reporters that Customs and Border Patrol could carry out immigration activities if ICE were abolished, even though CBP agents were involved in Pretti’s death. Krishnamoorthi seized on that comment Thursday night.

    “I think that would be a grave mistake,” Krishnamoorthi said. “CBP employs Greg Bovino (who was the agency’s ‘commander in charge’ and had overseen the agency’s immigration enforcement before being removed from Minneapolis). CBP is who actually shot and killed Alex Pretti. We need to abolish Trump’s ICE and revamp CBP and all of DHS.”

    Speaking to reporters after the debate, Stratton sought to clarify her earlier comment suggesting Border Patrol would remain in place if ICE were abolished.

    “When I talk about security at the border, I’m saying that there should be security at the border. … I’m not talking about CBP, I’m not talking about having agents storming and walking down Michigan Avenue like we have seen,” Stratton said. “I’m talking about border security.”

    U.S. Senate contender Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton (right) prepares alongside fellow contenders U.S. Reps. Robin Kelly (third from right) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (second from right), before their debate on Jan. 29, 2026, at WLS-Ch. 7. (Chris Sweda/Chicago Tribune)

    As for other responsibilities ICE currently handles, those could be delegated to other federal agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration, for duties related to drug smuggling investigations, Stratton said.

    Hours before the debate, Senate Democrats reached an agreement with the Trump administration and Republicans on a plan to forestall a long-term government shutdown by passing a two-week interim funding bill for Homeland Security. During that time, Democrats said they would negotiate on operational guardrails that immigration agents would have to follow.

    “Noem has to be fired. If she’s not fired, then we have to impeach her,” Krishnamoorthi said of his proposal for a deal. “Masks have to come off. IDs have to go on. Body cameras have to go on. No more warrantless arrests. Third-party investigations must be mandatory for all use of force. And, no more roving gangs of ICE agents or CBP agents throughout our cities.”

    Stratton said Senate Democrats should demand ICE and Border Patrol agents get out of American cities.

    “We want to see not one single dime more of funding for ICE, and we need to make sure that we investigate and prosecute all of these agents for their crimes and make sure they’re held accountable,” she said.

    Kelly said in addition to Noem’s departure, the entire Department of Homeland Security must be overhauled.

    “Yes, dismantle ICE but also the Border Patrol, also the agency that looks over citizenship and asylum,” she said. “All of it needs to be dismantled and rebuilt so people are not terrorized by their own government agency. So, I do think we do need enforcement. There’s no question about that. But not the enforcement that we have now.”

    After the debate, Kelly, who skipped taking questions from the press Monday night, told reporters Thursday that she hasn’t embraced either of the phrases — “abolish ICE” or “abolish Trump’s ICE” — that have come to highlight a subtle yet significant divide among Democrats, “because I’m real and realistic. I don’t just use a campaign slogan.”

    The debate came as the Pew Research Center released nationwide survey results showing widespread disapproval of some tactics used by federal immigration agents.

    The survey found 61% of Americans said it was unacceptable for agents to wear face coverings that hide their identities while working and 72% who said it’s wrong for agents to use a person’s appearance or the language they speak as a reason to check immigration status.

    The survey of 8,512 U.S. adults, conducted Jan. 20-26, also found nearly three-quarters of Americans say ordinary people should be able to record video of immigration arrests and nearly six-in-10 said they supported the ability for people to share information about where enforcement actions are happening.

    Leading up to the debate, the political action committee backing Stratton unveiled two new TV ads focusing on her vow to fight Trump and her call to abolish ICE. Stratton’s own campaign launched a similarly themed digital ad.

    Krishnamoorthi, meanwhile, announced the endorsement of four downstate Democratic county chairs, joining a list of 15 others who previously backed his Senate bid. The campaign said it was a demonstration that Krishnamoorthi, who was raised in Peoria, is the “downstate candidate in this race.”

    [ad_2]

    Rick Pearson, Dan Petrella

    Source link

  • Trump lawyers urge Supreme Court to block California’s new election map while upholding Texas’

    [ad_1]

    Trump administration lawyers have joined California Republicans in urging Supreme Court to block California’s new election map on the grounds that one district in the San Joaquin Valley was drawn to favor Latinos.

    Two months ago, Trump’s lawyers called on the court to uphold a new Republican-friendly election map in Texas, arguing that it was partisan gerrymander, not one driven by race.

    “Plaintiffs bringing a racial-gerrymander claim have the heavy burden to show that race was the predominant factor motivating” how the map was drawn, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said then.

    The Supreme Court agreed by a 6-3 vote and lifted a judges’ order that had blocked the Texas map which was drawn to win five more House seats for Republicans.

    Voting rights advocates had sued, noting Gov. Greg Abbott said the goal to eliminate four “coalition districts,” which had a combined majority of Black and Latino voters and elected Democrats.

    In a brief opinion, the justices said they presume state officials acted in “good faith” in drawing the maps of congressional districts.

    “It is indisputable that impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

    The justices also said it was too late in the election-year calendar for reshuffling the districts again.

    Undeterred, Trump’s lawyers now stake out the near opposite view to support the GOP’s attack on the California map which was upheld by the voters in November.

    “California’s recent redistricting is tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” Sauer wrote.

    He pointed to past comments from Paul Mitchell, the designated map maker, who said he hoped the Latino districts in the Central Valley could be “bolstered in order to make them most effective.”

    Trump’s lawyer said District 13 in Merced County has an odd-looking “northern plume” that brings in Democratic voters near Stockton.

    “California’s motivation in adopting the Prop. 50 map as a whole was undoubtedly to counteract Texas’s political gerrymander,” Sauer said. “But that overarching political goal is not a license for district-level racial gerrymandering.”

    He advised the justices to declare the new California map unconstitutional and require the state to return to the former map.
    The political impact of such a ruling is obvious. It would likely cost Democrats five seats in the House of Representatives.

    Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees appeals from the West Coast, asked for a response from California by Thursday. That would suggest the justices may act on the GOP’s appeal in the first week of February.

    Election law experts have been skeptical of the Republican arguments in the California case.

    “I don’t think Republicans are likely to prevail here,” UCLA law professor Rick Hasen wrote on his Election Law Blog.

    He said legal challenge “comes too late,” the proposed remedy is too broad, and it ignores the fact that the California’s voters were focused on partisanship, not race. It’s their intent that counts, he said.

    Then, Hasen added, there’s “the optics. It would be a terrible look for the Court … to allow Texas’s Republican gerrymander to go forward but stop California’s, especially if it’s a party line vote. That might be too much even for this Court.”

    There is also a key legal difference in how the appeal arrived at the court.

    In Texas, a three-judge panel heard the evidence, wrote a 160-page opinion and ruled against the state in a 2-1 decision.

    In the California case, by contrast, a three-judge panel heard the evidence and rejected the racial gerrymandering claim in a 2-1 decision.

    In December, Kagan dissented in the Texas case and argued the court should be reluctant to overturn the factual findings of the three judges who heard the case.

    The two judges in the majority said they did not see evidence of a racial gerrymander.

    “We find that the evidence of any racial motivation driving redistricting is exceptionally weak, while the evidence of partisan motivations is overwhelming,” said U.S. District Judges Josephine Staton and Wesley Hsu.

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • State GOP seeks Supreme Court injunction to block California’s new, voter-approved congressional districts

    [ad_1]

    The state Republican Party on Tuesday filed an emergency application asking the U.S. Supreme Court to issue an injunction to stop the congressional districts California voters approved last year from going into effect.

    Arguing that the districts created by Proposition 50 violate federal law because the race of voters was considered when they were configured, the filing urges the court to act by Feb. 9 because of ensuing deadlines for candidates to file to run for office.

    “Our emergency application asks the Supreme Court to put the brakes on Prop. 50 now, before the Democrats try to run out the clock and force candidates and voters to live with unconstitutional congressional districts,” state GOP Chairwoman Corrin Rankin said in a statement. “Californians deserve fair districts and clean elections, not a backroom redraw that picks winners and losers based on race.”

    A spokesperson for Gov. Gavin Newsom, who led the rare middecade redistricting effort and is one of the respondents in the lawsuit, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The redrawing of congressional districts typically occurs once a decade, after the U.S. census, to account for population shifts. In California, the boundaries are drawn by a voter-approved independent commission to stop partisan gerrymandering and incumbent protection.

    After President Trump urged leaders in Texas and other GOP-led states to redraw their delegation’s districts to boost the number of Republicans elected to Congress in the November midterm election, Newsom and other Democratic leaders responded by crafting a plan to increase the number of their party’s members in the California delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives. Republicans currently have a razor-thin majority, and the party that controls Congress after the November election will determine whether Trump is able to continue enacting his agenda during his final two years in office.

    California voters handily passed Proposition 50, one of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns in state history. The state GOP and others immediately challenged the new districts, but earlier this month, two members of a three-judge federal panel rejected their claim that the district boundaries were drawn to illegally favor Latino voters.

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • ICE ‘wrongfully detained’ L.A. County D.A.’s office employee, Hochman says

    [ad_1]

    A Los Angeles County district attorney’s office employee was “wrongfully detained” by federal immigration agents on Friday, according to an internal e-mail obtained by The Times.

    L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman called the incident “unacceptable” in an office-wide memo sent out on Friday evening.

    “A member of our Office was wrongfully detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). I can thankfully report that, shortly after, our employee was released and is safe,” Hochman wrote. “This incident is unacceptable. Our employee is a dedicated public servant who serves the people of Los Angeles County with professionalism and integrity. This troubling situation caused great distress to our colleague, our co-worker’s family, and our entire Office family.”

    The reason for the person’s detention was not immediately clear. A spokesman for Hochman declined to comment further and referred questions to ICE. Representatives for ICE did not respond to inquiries from The Times. .

    Two law enforcement officials with knowledge of the incident, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to talk candidly, said the employee was not a prosecutor. The employee was also not engaged in protest activity, the officials said.

    In the e-mail, Hochman said he personally reached out to federal authorities on Friday to make them aware of the situation and “urge them to be more respectful of the rights of those who reside in our community and ensure this wrongful conduct does not occur again.”

    In the months since ICE and Border Patrol agents began carrying out President Trump’s sweeping immigration raids in U.S. cities, civil liberties groups have repeatedly sued the Department of Justice alleging agents are making stops based on race rather than reasonable suspicion.

    After ICE and Border Patrol agents spent months raiding car washes and Home Depot parking lots around L.A. County, a federal judge in October found sufficient evidence that agents were violating the 4th Amendment by relying on the race, language and vocation of targeted individuals to form “reasonable suspicion” for arrest.

    The American Civil Liberties Union recently lodged a lawsuit against federal authorities on similar grounds over their behavior during chaotic and tense raids in Minneapolis. The Trump administration has maintained it is conducting tightly targeted operations and only going after the “worst of the worst,” but data show many of those arrested in Los Angeles during the raids had no criminal record.

    [ad_2]

    James Queally

    Source link

  • California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

    [ad_1]

    California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Sunday that he would not run for California governor, a decision grounded in his belief that his legal efforts combating the Trump administration as the state’s top prosecutor are paramount at this moment in history.

    “Watching this dystopian horror come to life has reaffirmed something I feel in every fiber of my being: in this moment, my place is here — shielding Californians from the most brazen attacks on our rights and our families,” Bonta said in a statement. “My vision for the California Department of Justice is that we remain the nation’s largest and most powerful check on power.”

    Bonta said that President Trump’s blocking of welfare funds to California and the fatal shooting of a Minnesota mother of three last week by a federal immigration agent cemented his decision to seek reelection to his current post, according to Politico, which first reported that Bonta would not run for governor.

    Bonta, 53, a former state lawmaker and a close political ally to Gov. Gavin Newsom, has served as the state’s top law enforcement official since Newsom appointed him to the position in 2021. In the last year, his office has sued the Trump administration more than 50 times — a track record that would probably have served him well had he decided to run in a state where Trump has lost three times and has sky-high disapproval ratings.

    Bonta in 2024 said that he was considering running. Then in February he announced he had ruled it out and was focused instead on doing the job of attorney general, which he considers especially important under the Trump administration. Then, both former Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) announced they would not run for governor, and Bonta began reconsidering, he said.

    “I had two horses in the governor’s race already,” Bonta told The Times in November. “They decided not to get involved in the end. … The race is fundamentally different today, right?”

    The race for California governor remains wide open. Newsom is serving the final year of his second term and is barred from running again because of term limits. Newsom has said he is considering a run for president in 2028.

    Former Rep. Katie Porter — an early leader in polls — late last year faltered after videos emerged of her screaming at an aide and berating a reporter. The videos contributed to her dropping behind Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, in a November poll released by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.

    Porter rebounded a bit toward the end of the year, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed, however none of the candidates has secured a majority of support and many voters remain undecided.

    California hasn’t elected a Republican governor since 2006, Democrats heavily outnumber Republicans in the state, and many are seething with anger over Trump and looking for Democratic candidates willing to fight back against the current administration.

    Bonta has faced questions in recent months about spending about $468,000 in campaign funds on legal advice last year as he spoke to federal investigators about alleged corruption involving former Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, who was charged in an alleged bribery scheme involving local businessmen David Trung Duong and Andy Hung Duong. All three have pleaded not guilty.

    According to his political consultant Dan Newman, Bonta — who had received campaign donations from the Duong family — was approached by investigators because he was initially viewed as a “possible victim” in the alleged scheme, though that was later ruled out. Bonta has since returned $155,000 in campaign contributions from the Duong family, according to news reports.

    Bonta is the son of civil rights activists Warren Bonta, a white native Californian, and Cynthia Bonta, a native of the Philippines who immigrated to the U.S. on a scholarship in 1965. Bonta, a U.S. citizen, was born in Quezon City, Philippines, in 1972, when his parents were working there as missionaries, and immigrated with his family to California as an infant.

    In 2012, Bonta was elected to represent Oakland, Alameda and San Leandro as the first Filipino American to serve in California’s Legislature. In Sacramento, he pursued a string of criminal justice reforms and developed a record as one of the body’s most liberal members.

    Bonta is married to Assemblywoman Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who succeeded him in the state Assembly, and the couple have three children.

    Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector, Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • How a legal group’s anti-LGBTQ policies took root in school districts across a state

    [ad_1]

    The West Shore school board policy committee meeting came to a halt almost as soon as it began. As a board member started going over the agenda on July 17, local parent Danielle Gross rose to object to a last-minute addition she said hadn’t been on the district’s website the day before.

    By posting notice of the proposal so close to the meeting, charged Gross, who is also a partner at a communications and advocacy firm that works on state education policy, the board had violated Pennsylvania’s open meetings law, failing to provide the public at least 24 hours’ notice about a topic “this board knows is of great concern for many community members interested in the rights of our LGBTQ students.” 

    The committee chair, relentlessly banging her gavel, adjourned the meeting to a nonpublic “executive session.” When the committee reconvened, the policy was not mentioned again until the meeting’s end, when a lone public commenter, Heather Keller, invoked “Hamlet” to warn that something was rotten in the Harrisburg suburbs. 

    The proposed policy, which would bar trans students from using bathrooms and locker rooms aligned with their gender identity, was a nearly verbatim copy of one crafted by a group called the Independence Law Center — a Harrisburg-based Christian right legal advocacy group whose model policies have led to costly lawsuits in districts around the state.

    “Being concerned about that, I remembered that we don’t partner with the Independence Law Center,” Keller said. “We haven’t hired them as consultants. And they’re not our district solicitor.” 

    To those who’d followed education politics in the state, Keller’s comment would register as wry understatement. Over the past several years, ILC’s growing entanglement with dozens of Pennsylvania school boards has become a high-profile controversy. Through interviews, an extensive review of local reporting and public documents, In These Times and The Hechinger Report found that, of the state’s 500 school districts, at least 21 are known to have consulted with or signed formal contracts accepting ILC’s pro bono legal services — to advise on, draft and defend district policies, free of charge. 

    But over the last year, it’s become clear ILC’s influence stretches beyond such formal partnerships, as school districts from Bucks County (outside Philadelphia) to Beaver County (west of Pittsburgh) have proposed or adopted virtually identical anti-LGBTQ and book ban policies that originated with ILC — sometimes without acknowledging any connection to the group or where the policies came from. 

    In districts without formal partnerships with ILC, such as West Shore, figuring out what, exactly, their board’s relationship is to the group has been a painfully assembled puzzle, thanks to school board obstruction, blocked open records requests and reports of backdoor dealing. 

    Although ILC has existed for nearly 20 years, its recent prominence began around 2021 with a surge of “parents’ rights” complaints about pandemic-era masking, teaching about racism, LGBTQ representation and how library books and curricula are selected. In many districts where such debates raged, calls to hire ILC soon followed. 

    In 2024 alone, ILC made inroads of one kind or another with roughly a dozen districts in central Pennsylvania, including West Shore, which proposed contracting ILC that March and invited the group to speak to the board in a closed-door meeting the public couldn’t attend. (ILC did not respond to multiple interview requests or emailed questions.)

    On the night of that March meeting, Gross organized a rally outside the school board building, drawing roughly 100 residents to protest, even as it snowed. The board backed down from hiring ILC, but that didn’t stop it from introducing ILC policies. In addition to the proposed bathroom policy, that May the board passed a ban on trans students joining girls’ athletics teams after they’ve started puberty and allowed district officials to request doctors’ notes and birth certificates to enforce it. 

    Danielle Gross at her communications and advocacy firm in downtown Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on Aug. 19. Gross, who has lived in the nearby West Shore school district that her children attend for decades, has expressed concern during local school board meetings over what and how proposals are introduced and the lack of transparency to parents. Credit: Michelle Gustafson for The Hechinger Report

    To Gross, it’s an example of how West Shore and other school boards without formal relationships with ILC have still found ways to advance the group’s agenda. “They’re waiting for other school boards to do all the controversial stuff with the ILC,” Gross said, then “taking the policies other districts have, running them through their solicitors, and implementing them that way.” (A spokesperson for West Shore stated that the district had not contracted with ILC and declined further comment.)

    “It’s like a hydra effect,” said Kait Linton of the grassroots community group Public Education Advocates of Lancaster. “They’ve planted seeds for a vine, and now the vine’s taking off in all the directions it wants to go.” 

    Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education. 

    ILC was founded in the wake of a Pennsylvania lawsuit that drew nationwide attention and prompted significant local embarrassment. 

    In October 2004, the Dover Area School District — situated, like West Shore, in York County, south of Harrisburg — changed its biology curriculum to introduce the quasi-creationist theory of “intelligent design” as an alternative to evolution. Eleven families sued, arguing that intelligent design was “fundamentally a religious proposition rather than a scientific one.” In December 2005, a federal court agreed, ruling that public schools teaching the theory violated the U.S. Constitution’s establishment clause. 

    During the case, an attorney named Randall Wenger unsuccessfully tried to add the creationist Christian think tank he worked for — which published the book Dover sought to teach — to the suit as a defendant, and, failing that, filed an amicus brief instead. When the district lost and was ultimately left with $1 million in legal fees, Wenger found a lesson in it for conservatives moving forward.

    Speaking at a 2005 conference hosted by the Pennsylvania Family Institute — part of a national network of state-level “family councils” tied to the heavyweight Christian right organizations Family Research Council and Focus on the Family — Wenger suggested Dover could have avoided or won legal challenges if officials hadn’t mentioned their religious motivations during public school board meetings. 

    “Give us a call before you do something controversial like that,” Wenger said, according to LancasterOnline. Then, in a line that’s become infamous among ILC’s critics, Wenger invoked a biblical reference to add, “I think we need to do a better job at being clever as serpents.” (Wenger did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)

    The following year, in 2006, the Pennsylvania Family Institute launched ILC with Wenger as its chief counsel, a role he remains in today, in addition to serving as chief operating officer. ILC now has three other staff attorneys and has worked directly as plaintiff’s attorneys on two Supreme Court cases: one was part of the larger Hobby Lobby decision, which allows employers to opt out of employee health insurance plans that include contraception coverage; the other expanded religious exemptions for workers.

    ILC has financial ties and a history of collaborating with Christian right legal advocacy behemoth Alliance Defending Freedom, including on a 2017 lawsuit against a school district outside Philadelphia that allowed a trans student to use the locker room aligned with their gender. ILC has filed amicus briefs in support of numerous other Christian right causes, including two that led to major Supreme Court victories for the right in 2025: Mahmoud v. Taylor, which limited public schools’ ability to assign books with LGBTQ themes; and United States v. Skrmetti, which affirmed a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors. In recent months, the group filed two separate amicus briefs on behalf of Pennsylvania school board members in anti-trans cases in other states. In both cases, which were brought by Alliance Defending Freedom and concern school sports and pronoun usage, ILC urged the Supreme Court to “resolve the issue nationwide.”

    In lower courts, ILC has worked on or contributed briefs to lawsuits seeking to start public school board meetings with prayer and to allow religious groups to proselytize public school students, among other issues. More quietly, as the local blog Lancaster Examiner reported — and as one ILC attorney recounted at a conference in 2022 — ILC has defended “conversion therapy,” the broadly discredited theory that homosexuality is a disorder that can be cured.

    To critics, all of these efforts have helped systematically chip away at civil rights protections for LGBTQ students at the local level, seeding the policies that President Donald Trump’s administration is now trying to make ubiquitous through executive orders. And while local backlash is building in some areas, activists are hindered by the threat that the ILC’s efforts are ultimately aimed at laying the groundwork for a Supreme Court case that could formalize discrimination against transgender students into law nationwide. 

    But ILC’s greatest influence is arguably much closer to its Harrisburg home, in neighboring Lancaster and York counties, where nine districts have contracted ILC and at least three more have adopted its model policies. 

    In Lancaster’s Hempfield district, it started with a 2021 controversy over a trans student joining the girls’ track team. School board meetings that had already grown tense over pandemic masking requirements erupted in new fights about LGBTQ rights and visibility. In the middle of one meeting, recalled Hempfield parent and substitute teacher Erin Small, a board member abruptly suggested hiring ILC to write a new district policy. The suddenness of the proposal caused such public outcry, said Small, that the vote to hire ILC had to be postponed.

    But within a few months, the district signed a contract with ILC to write what became Pennsylvania’s first school district ban on trans students participating in sports teams aligned with their gender identity. Other ILC policy proposals followed, including a successful 2023 effort to bar the district from using books or materials that include sexual content, which immediately prompted an intensive review of books written by LGBTQ and non-white authors. (The Hempfield district did not respond to requests for comment.)

    In nearby Elizabethtown, the path to hiring ILC began with a fraudulent 2021 complaint, when a man claimed, during a school board meeting, that his middle schooler had checked out an inappropriate book from the school library. Although it later emerged that the man had reportedly used a fake name and officials found no evidence he had children attending the school, his claim nonetheless sparked a long debate over book policies, which eventually led to the district contracting ILC as special legal counsel in 2024. Two anti-trans policies were subsequently passed in January 2025, and a ban on “sexually explicit” books, also based on ILC’s models, was discussed this past spring but has not moved forward to date. (The Elizabethtown district did not respond to requests for comment.)

    Across the Susquehanna River in York County — where five districts have contracted ILC and two more have considered or passed its policies — the group’s influence has been broad and sometimes confounding. In one instance, as the York Dispatch discovered, ILC not only authored four policy proposals for the Red Lion Area School District, but ILC senior counsel Jeremy Samek, a registered Pennsylvania lobbyist, also drafted a speech for the board president to deliver in support of three anti-trans policies, all of which passed in 2024. (The Red Lion district did not respond to requests for comment.)

    The same year, South Western School District, reportedly acting on ILC advice, ordered a high school to cut large windows into the walls of two bathrooms that had been designated as “gender identity restrooms,” allowing passersby in the hallway to see inside, consequently discouraging students from using them. (The district did not respond to requests for comment, but in a statement to local paper the Evening Sun, school board President Matt Gelazela cited student safety and said the windows helped staff monitor for vaping, bullying and other prohibited activities.)

    ​​In many districts, said Lancaster parent Eric Fisher, ILC’s growing relationships with school boards has been eased by the ubiquitous presence around the state of its sister organizations within the Pennsylvania Family Institute, including the institute’s lobbying arm, voucher group, youth leadership conference and Church Ambassador Network, which brings pastors from across Pennsylvania to lobby lawmakers in the state Capitol. 

    As a result, said Fisher, when ILC shows up in a district, board members often are already familiar with them or other institute affiliates, “having met them at church and having their churches put their stamp of endorsement on them. I think it makes it really easy for [board members] to say yes.” 

    But in nearly every district that has considered working with ILC, wide-scale pushback has also followed — though often to no avail. In June 2024, in Elizabethtown — where school board fights have been so fractious that they inspired a full-length documentary — members of the public spoke in opposition to hiring ILC at a ratio of roughly 5 to 1 before the board voted unanimously to hire the group anyway. 

    In the Upper Adams district in Biglerville, southwest of Harrisburg, the school board voted to contract ILC despite a cacophony of public comments and a 500-signature petition in opposition. 

    In Lancaster’s Warwick district, the school board’s vote to hire ILC prompted the resignation of a superintendent who had served in her role for 15 years and who reported that the district’s insurance carrier had warned the district might not be covered in future lawsuits if it adopted ILC’s anti-trans policies. 

    Since then, Warwick resident Kayla Cook noted during a public presentation about ILC this past summer, the mood in the district has grown grim. “We do not have any students at the moment trying to participate [in sports] who are trans. However, we have students who simply have a short haircut being profiled as being trans,” Cook said. “It’s tipped far into fear-based behaviors, where we are dipping our toes into checking the student’s body to make sure that they’re identifying as the appropriate gender.” (A district spokesperson directed interview requests to the school board, which did not respond to requests for comment.)

    But perhaps nowhere was the fight as fraught as in Lancaster’s Penn Manor School District, which hired ILC to draft new policies about trans students just months after the suicide of a trans youth from Penn Manor — the fifth such suicide in the Lancaster community in less than two years. 

    Before the Penn Manor school board publicly proposed retaining ILC, in June 2024 — scheduling a presentation by and a vote on hiring ILC for the same meeting — district Superintendent Phil Gale wrote to the board about his misgivings. In an email obtained by LancasterOnline, Gale warned the board against policies “that will distinguish one group of students from another” and passed along a warning from the district’s insurance carrier that adopting potentially discriminatory policies might affect the district’s coverage if it were sued by students or staff.

    In a narrow 5-4 vote, the all-Republican board declined to hire ILC that June. But after one board member reconsidered, the matter was placed back on the agenda for two meetings that August. 

    Malinda Harnish Clatterbuck and her husband, Mark Clatterbuck, sit on the back porch of their home in Holtwood, Pennsylvania. Credit: Michelle Gustafson for The Hechinger Report

    Members of the community publicly presented an open letter, signed by roughly 80 Penn Manor residents, requesting that, if policies about trans students were truly needed, the district establish a task force of local experts to draft them rather than outsource policymaking to ILC. One of the letter’s organizers, Mark Clatterbuck, a religious studies professor at New Jersey’s Montclair State University, said the district never acknowledged it or responded. (Maddie Long, a spokesperson for Penn Manor, said the district could not comment because of the litigation.) 

    That February, Clatterbuck’s son, Ash — a college junior and transgender man who’d grown up in Penn Manor — had died by suicide, shortly after the nationally publicized death of Nex Benedict, a nonbinary 16-year-old in Oklahoma who died by suicide the day after being beaten unconscious in a high school girls’ bathroom.

    In the first August meeting to reconsider hiring ILC, Clatterbuck told the Penn Manor board, through tears, how “living in a hostile political environment that dehumanizes them at school, at home, at church and in the halls of Congress” was making “life unlivable for far too many of our trans children.”

    Two weeks later, at the second meeting, Ash’s mother, Malinda Harnish Clatterbuck, pleaded for board members talking about student safety to consider the children these policies actively harm. 

    “ILC does not even recognize trans and gender-nonconforming children as existing,” said Harnish Clatterbuck, a pastor whose family has lived in Lancaster for 10 generations. “That fact alone should preclude them from even being considered by the board.”

    Her husband spoke again as well, telling the board how Ash had frequently warned about the spread of policies that stoke “irrational hysteria around” trans youth — “the kind of policies,” Mark Clatterbuck noted, “that the Pennsylvania-based Independence Law Center loves to draft.” 

    Reminding the board that five trans youth in the area had died by suicide within just 18 months, he continued, “Do not try to tell me that there is no connection between the kind of dehumanizing policies that the ILC drafts and the deaths of our trans children.” 

    But the board voted to hire ILC anyway, 5-4, and in the following months adopted two of ILC’s anti-trans policies.

    Related: Red school boards in a blue state asked Trump for help — and got it

    In anticipation of such public outcry, some school boards around Pennsylvania have taken steps to obscure their interest in ILC’s agenda. 

    Kristina Moon, a senior attorney at the Education Law Center of Pennsylvania, a legal services nonprofit that advocates for public school students’ rights, has watched a progression in how school boards interact with ILC. 

    When her group first began receiving calls related to ILC, around 2021, alarmed parents told similar stories of boards proposing book bans targeting queer or trans students’ perspectives, or identical packages of policies that included restrictions about bathrooms, sports and pronouns. 

    “At first, we would see boards openly talking about their interest in contracting with ILC,” said Moon. But as local opposition began to grow, “board members stopped sharing so publicly.” 

    Instead, Moon said, reports began to emerge of school boards discussing or meeting with ILC in secret.

    In Hempfield, in 2022, the board moved some policy discussions into committee sessions less likely to be attended by the public, and held a vote on an anti-trans sports policy without announcing it publicly, possibly in violation of Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act, as Mother Jones reported.

    In Warwick, in 2024, several board members admitted meeting privately with ILC’s Randall Wenger, according to LancasterOnline. 

    Across the state, in Bucks County, one Central Bucks school board member recounted in an op-ed for the Bucks County Beacon how her conservative colleagues had stonewalled her when she asked about the origins of a new book ban policy in 2022, only to have the board later admit ILC had performed a legal review of it “pro bono,” as PhillyBurbs reported.

    Subsequent reporting by the York Daily Record and Reuters revealed the board’s relationship with ILC was more involved and included discussions about other policies related to trans student athletes and pronoun policy. (Both Central Bucks’ books and anti-LGBTQ policies were later cited in an ACLU federal complaint that cost the district $1.75 million in legal fees, as well as in a related Education Department investigation into whether the district had created a hostile learning environment for LGBTQ students.)

    The Pennsylvania State Capitol building in downtown Harrisburg. Credit: Michelle Gustafson for The Hechinger Report

    But the sense of backroom dealing reached an almost cartoonish level in York County, where, in March 2024, conservative board members from 12 county school districts were invited to a secret meeting hosted by a right-wing political action committee, along with specific instructions about how to keep their participation off the public radar. According to the York Dispatch, the invitation came from former Central York school board member Veronica Gemma, who (after losing her seat) was hired as education director for PA Economic Growth, a PAC that had helped elect 48 conservatives to York school boards the previous fall. (Gemma did not respond to interview requests.)

    Gemma’s invitation was accompanied by an agenda sent by the PAC, which included a discussion about ILC and how board members could “build a network of support” and “advance our shared goals more effectively countywide.” The invitation also included the admonition that “confidentiality is paramount” and that each district should only send four board members or fewer — to avoid the legal threshold for a quorum that would make the meeting a matter of public record. 

    “Remember, no more than 4 — sunshine laws,” Gemma wrote. 

    In the wake of stories like these, Wenger’s 2005 suggestion that conservatives “become as clever as serpents” in concealing their intentions became ubiquitous in coverage of and advocacy against ILC — showing up in newspaper articles, in editorials and even on a T-shirt for sale online. 

    “I think it’s very obvious,” reflected Moon, “but if something has to be taking place in secrecy, I’m not sure it can be good for our students.” 

    But the lack of transparency shows up in subtler ways too, in the spreading phenomenon of districts adopting ILC policies without admitting where the policies come from. That was the case in Eastern York in 2025, where board members who had previously lobbied for an ILC pronoun policy later directed their in-house attorney to write an original policy instead, following the same principles but avoiding the baggage an ILC connection would bring.

    In Elizabethtown (which did contract ILC), one policy was even introduced erroneously referencing clauses from another district’s code, in an indication of how directly districts are copy-pasting from one another.

    In 2025, ILC attorney Jeremy Samek even seemed to acknowledge the trend, predicting that fewer districts might contract ILC going forward, since the combination of Trump’s executive orders on trans students and the general spread of policies similar to ILC’s meant “it’s going to be a lot easier for other schools to do that without even talking to us.” 

    Related: Probes into racism in schools stall under Trump 

    In the face of what appears like a deliberate strategy of concealment, members of the public have increasingly turned to official channels to compel boards to disclose their dealings with ILC. Mark Clatterbuck did so in 2024 and 2025, filing 10 Right-to-Know requests with Penn Manor for all school board and administration communications with or about ILC and policies ILC consulted on and any records related to a set of specific keywords.

    Thirty miles north, three Elizabethtown parents sued their school board in the spring of 2025, alleging it deliberately met and conferred with ILC in nonpublic meetings and private communications to “circumvent the requirements of the Sunshine Act.”

    In both cases, and more broadly in the region, ILC critics are keenly aware that, by bringing complaints or lawsuits against the group or the school boards it works with, they might be doing exactly what ILC wants: furthering its chances to land another case before the Supreme Court, where a favorable ruling could set a dangerous national precedent, such as ruling that Title IX protections don’t cover trans students. 

    “They’re itching for a case,” said Clatterbuck. To that end, he added, his pro bono attorneys — at the law firm Gibbel Kraybill & Hess LLC, which also represents the Elizabethtown plaintiffs pro bono — have been careful not to do ILC’s work for it. 

    Largely, that has meant keeping the cases narrowly focused on Sunshine Act violations.

    But in both cases, there are also hints of the larger issue at hand — of whether, in a repeat of the old Dover “intelligent design” case, ILC’s policies represent school boards imposing inherently religious viewpoints on public schools. After all, ILC’s parent group, the Pennsylvania Family Institute, clearly states its mission is to make Pennsylvania “a place where God is honored” and to “strengthen families by restoring to public life the traditional, foundational principles and values essential for the well-being of society.” And in 2024, the institute’s president, Michael Geer, told a Christian TV audience that much of ILC’s work involves working with school boards “on the transgender issue, fighting that ideology that is pervasive in our society.” 

    In the Elizabethtown complaint, the plaintiffs argue that district residents must “have the opportunity to observe Board deliberations regarding policies that will affect their children in order to understand the Board members’ true motivation and rationale for adopting policies — particularly when policies are prepared by an outside organization seeking to advance a  particular religious viewpoint and agenda.” 

    The public has ample cause to suspect as much. Five current and former members of Elizabethtown’s school board are connected to a far-right church in town, where the pastor joined 150 other locals in traveling to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021. Among them were current board members Stephen Lindemuth — who once preached a sermon at the church arguing that “gender identity confusion” doesn’t “line up with what God desires” — and his wife, Danielle Lindemuth, who helped organize the caravan of buses that went to Washington. (Stephen Lindemuth replied by email, “I have no recollection of making any judgmental comments concerning LGBTQ in my most recent preaching the past few years.” Neither he nor his wife were accused of any unlawful acts on Jan. 6.)

    Another board member until this past December, James Emery, went through the church’s pastoral training program and in 2022 served as a member of the security detail of far-right Christian nationalist gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano. 

    The West Shore School District Administration Center, where school board meetings are held, in Lewisberry, Pennsylvania. Credit: Michelle Gustafson for The Hechinger Report

    School board meetings in Elizabethtown have also frequently devolved into religious battles, with one local mother, Amy Karr, board chair of Elizabethtown’s Church of the Brethren, recalling how local right-wing activists accused ILC’s opponents of being possessed by demonic spirits or a “vehicle of Satan.” 

    In Penn Manor, Clatterbuck similarly hoped to lay bare the “overtly religious nature” of the board’s motivation by including in his Right-to-Know requests a demand for all school board communications about ILC policies containing keywords like “God,” “Christian,” “Jesus,” “faith” and “biblical.” 

    For nearly a year, the district sought to avoid fulfilling the requests, with questionable invocations of attorney-client privilege (including one board member’s claim that she had “personally” retained ILC as counsel), sending back obviously incomplete records and protestations that Clatterbuck’s keyword request turned up so many results that it was too burdensome to fulfill. Ultimately, Clatterbuck appealed to the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records to compel the board to honor the request. 

    This fall, Clatterbuck received a 457-page document from the board containing dozens of messages that suggest his suspicions were correct. 

    In response to local constituents writing in support of ILC — decrying pronoun policies as a violation of religious liberty, claiming “the whole LGBTQ spectrum is rooted in the brokenness of sin” and calling for board members to rebuke teachers unions in “the precious blood of Jesus” — at least three board members wrote back with encouragement and thanks. In one example, board member Anthony Lombardo told a constituent who had written a 12-page message arguing that queer theory is “inherently atheistic” that “I completely agree with your analysis and conclusions.” 

    When another community member sent the board an article from an evangelical website arguing that using “transgendered pronouns … falsifies the gospel” and “tramples on the blood of Christ,” board member Donna Wert responded, “Please know that I firmly agree with the beliefs held in [this article]. And please know that heightened movement is finally being made concerning this, as you will see.” 

    To Clatterbuck, such messages demonstrate the school board’s religious sympathies, as well as how Christian nationalism plays out at the local level. While national examples of Christian right dominance, like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Crusader tattoos or Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s “Appeal to Heaven” flag, get the most attention, Clatterbuck said, “this is what it looks like when you’re controlling local school boards and passing policies that affect people directly in their local community.” 

    But the local level might also be the place where advocates have the best chance of fighting back, said Kait Linton of Public Education Advocates of Lancaster.

    Speaking ahead of a panel discussion on ILC at Elizabethtown’s Church of the Brethren last June — one of several panels PEAL hosted around Lancaster in the run-up to November’s school board elections — Linton emphasized the importance of focusing on the “hyperlocal.”

    “With everything that’s happening at the national level,” Linton said, “we find a lot of folks get caught up in that, when really we have far less opportunity to make a difference up there than we do right here.”

    PEAL’s efforts have been matched by other groups at the district level, like Elizabethtown’s Etown Common Sense 2.0, which local parent and former president Alisha Runkle said advocates against the sort of policies ILC drafts and also seeks to support teachers “being beaten down and needing support” in an environment of relentless hostility and demands to police their lesson plans, libraries and language. 

    They’re also reflected in the work of statewide coalitions like Pennsylvanians for Welcoming and Inclusive Schools, which helps districts share information about ILC policies — including a searchable map of ILC’s presence around the state — and resources like the Education Law Center, which has sent detailed demand or advocacy letters to numerous school districts considering adopting ILC-inspired policies. 

    This past November, that local-level work resulted in some signs for cautious hope. In Lancaster County’s Hempfield School District — one of the first districts in the state to hire ILC — the school board flipped to Democratic control. Among the new board members are Kait Linton and fellow PEAL activist Erin Small. 

    Across the river, in West Shore, the departure of three right-wing board members — one who resigned and two who lost their elections — left the board with a new 5-4 majority of Democratic and centrist Republican members. After the election, the board promptly moved to table three contentious policy proposals, including the anti-trans bathroom policy the board had copied from ILC and a book ban policy that drew heavily on ILC’s work. 

    While in other Lancaster districts — including Elizabethtown, Warwick and Penn Manor — school boards remained firmly in conservative control, there are also signs of growing pushback, as in Elizabethtown, where Runkle noted the teachers union has recently begun challenging the board during public meetings and local students have gotten active protesting book bans.

    Similar trends have happened statewide, said the Education Law Center’s Kristina Moon, who noted that voters “were so concerned about the extremist action they saw on the boards that it was kind of a wake-up call: that we can’t sleep on school board elections, and we need to have boards that reflect a commitment to all of the students in our schools.” 

    While reports of ILC’s direct involvement with school boards seem to have waned in recent months, said Moon, that “does not mean the threat to our public schools is over. We see continued use of those discriminatory policies by school boards just copying the policy exactly as it was adopted elsewhere. And it causes the same harm in a district, whether the district is publicly meeting with ILC or not.” 

    Plus there are now Trump’s anti-trans executive orders, which have spread confusion statewide. And just this December, a legal challenge brought by another Christian right law firm, the Thomas More Society, is challenging the authority of Pennsylvania’s civil rights commission to apply anti-discrimination protections to trans students in public schools. 

    As a consequence, the Education Law Center has spent much of the past year trying to educate school and community leaders that executive orders are not the law itself, and they cannot supersede case law supporting the rights of LGBTQ students. 

    “We’re trying to cut through the noise,” Moon said, “to ensure that schools remain clear about their legal obligations to provide safe environments for all students … so they can focus on learning and not worrying about identity-based attacks.”

    Contact editor Caroline Preston at 212-870-8965, via Signal at CarolineP.83 or on email at preston@hechingerreport.org

    This story about Independence Law Center was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education, in partnership with In These Times. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter. Sign up for the In These Times weekly newsletter.

    Since you made it to the bottom of this article, we have a small favor to ask. 

    We’re in the midst of our end-of-year campaign, our most important fundraising effort of the year. Thanks to NewsMatch, every dollar you give will be doubled through December 31.

    If you believe stories like the one you just finished matter, please consider pitching in what you can. This effort helps ensure our reporting and resources stay free and accessible to everyone—teachers, parents, policymakers—invested in the future of education.

    Thank you. 
    Liz Willen
    Editor in chief

    Creative Commons License

    Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.

    [ad_2]

    Kathryn Joyce

    Source link

  • OPINION: Instead of defining Black children by their test scores, we should help them overcome academic barriers and pursue their dreams

    [ad_1]

    Across the U.S., public school districts are panicking over test scores.

    The National Assessment of Educational Progress, or the Nation’s Report Card, as it is known, revealed that students are underperforming in reading, with the most recent scores being the lowest overall since the test was first given in 1992.

    The latest scores for Black children have been especially low. In Pittsburgh, for example, only 26 percent of Black third- through fifth-grade public school students are reading at advanced or proficient levels compared to 67 percent of white children.

    This opportunity gap should challenge us to think differently about how we educate Black children. Too often, Black children are labeled as needing “skills development.” The problem is that such labels lead to educational practices that dim their curiosity and enthusiasm for school — and overlook their capacity to actually enjoy learning.

    As a result, without that enjoyment and the encouragement that often accompanies it, too many Black students grow up never feeling supported in the pursuit of their dreams.

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education.

    Narrowly defining children based on their test scores is a big mistake. We, as educators, must see children as advanced dreamers who have the potential to overcome any academic barrier with our support and encouragement.

    As a co-founder of a bookstore, I believe there are many ways we can do better. I often use books and personal experiences to illustrate some of the pressing problems impacting Black children and families.

    One of my favorites is “Abdul’s Story” by Jamilah Thompkins-Bigelow.

    It tells the tale of a gifted young Black boy who is embarrassed by his messy handwriting and frequent misspellings, so much so that, in erasing his mistakes, he gouges a hole in his paper.

    He tries to hide it under his desk. Instead of chastening him, his teacher, Mr. Muhammad, does something powerful: He sits beside Abdul under the desk.

    Mr. Muhammad shows his own messy notebook to Abdul, who realizes “He’s messy just like me.”

    In that moment, Abdul learns that his dream of becoming a writer is possible; he just has to work in a way that suits his learning style. But he also needs an educator who supports him along the way.

    It is something I understand: In my own life, I have been both Abdul and Mr. Muhammad, and it was a teacher named Mrs. Lee who changed my life.

    One day after I got into a fight, she pulled me out of the classroom and said, “I am not going to let you fail.” At that point, I was consistently performing at or below basic in reading and writing, but she didn’t define me by my test scores.

    Instead, she asked, “What do you want to be when you grow up?”

    I replied, “I want to be like Bryant Gumbel.”

    She asked why.

    “Because he’s smart and he always interviews famous people and presidents,” I said.

    Mrs. Lee explained that Mr. Gumbel was a journalist and encouraged me to start a school newspaper.

    So I did. I interviewed people and wrote articles, revising them until they were ready for publication. I did it because Mrs. Lee believed in me and saw me for who I wanted to be — not just my test scores.

    If more teachers across the country were like Mrs. Lee and Mr. Muhammad, more Black children would develop the confidence to pursue their dreams. Black children would realize that even if they have to work harder to acquire certain skills, doing so can help them accomplish their dreams.

    Related: Taking on racial bias in early math lessons

    Years ago, I organized a reading tour in four libraries across the city of Pittsburgh. At that time, I was a volunteer at the Carnegie Library, connecting book reading to children’s dreams.

    I remember working with a young Black boy who was playing video games on the computer with his friends. I asked him if he wanted to read, and he shook his head no.

    So I asked, “Who wants to build the city of the future?” and he raised his hand.

    He and I walked over to a table and began building with magnetic tiles. As we began building, I asked the same question Mrs. Lee had asked me: “What do you want to be when you grow up?”

    “An architect,” he replied.

    I jumped up and grabbed a picture book about Frank Lloyd Wright. We began reading the book, and I noticed that he struggled to pronounce many of the words. I supported him, and we got through it. I later wrote about it.

    Each week after that experience, this young man would come up to me ready to read about his dream. He did so because I saw him just as Mr. Muhammad saw Abdul, and just like Mrs. Lee saw me — as an advanced dreamer.

    Consider that when inventor Lonnie Johnson was a kid, he took a test and the results declared that he could not be an engineer. Imagine if he’d accepted that fate. Kids around the world would not have the joy of playing with the Super Soaker water gun.

    When the architect Phil Freelon was a kid, he struggled with reading. If he had given up, the world would not have experienced the beauty and splendor of the National Museum of African American History and Culture.

    When illustrator Jerry Pinkney was a kid, he struggled with reading just like Freelon. If he had defined himself as “basic” and “below average,” children across America would not have been inspired by his powerful picture book illustrations.

    Narrowly defining children based on their test scores is a big mistake.

    Each child is a solution to a problem in the world, whether it is big or small. So let us create conditions that inspire Black children to walk boldly in the pursuit of their dreams.

    Nosakhere Griffin-EL is the co-founder of The Young Dreamers’ Bookstore. He is a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project in partnership with the National Black Child Development Institute.

    Contact the opinion editor at opinion@hechingerreport.org.

    This story about Black children and education was produced byThe Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’sweekly newsletter.

    Since you made it to the bottom of this article, we have a small favor to ask. 

    We’re in the midst of our end-of-year campaign, our most important fundraising effort of the year. Thanks to NewsMatch, every dollar you give will be doubled through December 31.

    If you believe stories like the one you just finished matter, please consider pitching in what you can. This effort helps ensure our reporting and resources stay free and accessible to everyone—teachers, parents, policymakers—invested in the future of education.

    Thank you. 
    Liz Willen
    Editor in chief

    Creative Commons License

    Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.

    [ad_2]

    Nosakhere Griffin-EL

    Source link

  • Conspiracy theorist-podcaster joins crowded GOP race for Colorado governor, but will candidacy ‘go nowhere’?

    [ad_1]

    A conservative podcaster who’s trumpeted false election conspiracies and called for the execution of political rivals, including Gov. Jared Polis, has formally joined the Republican race to become Colorado’s next governor.

    Joe Oltmann, who filed his candidacy paperwork Monday night, now seeks to participate in an electoral system that he has repeatedly tried to undermine.

    He is the 22nd Republican actively seeking to earn the party’s nomination in June. It’s the largest gubernatorial primary field for a major party in Colorado this century, surpassing the GOP’s previous records set first in 2018, and then again in 2022 — and it comes as the party hopes to break Democrats’ electoral dominance in the state.

    That field will almost certainly narrow in the coming months; four Republicans who’d filed have already dropped out. No more than four are likely to make it onto the ballot — either through the state assembly or by gathering signatures — for the summer primary, said Dick Wadhams, the Colorado GOP’s former chairman.

    The size of the primary field doesn’t really matter, he said, because few candidates will actually end up in front of voters. Eighteen candidates filed ahead of the 2022 race, for instance, but just two were on the primary ballot.

    On the Democratic side, a smaller field of seven active candidates is headlined by Attorney General Phil Weiser and U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet. Polis is term-limited from running again.

    For 2026, Wadhams counted only a half-dozen or so Republican candidates whom he considered “credible,” a qualifier that Wadhams said he used “very, very loosely”: Oltmann, state Sens. Barbara Kirkmeyer and Mark Baisley, state Rep. Scott Bottoms, ministry leader Victor Marx, Teller County Sheriff Jason Mikesell and former Congressman Greg Lopez.

    Wadhams said that other than Kirkmeyer, all of those candidates had either supported election conspiracies or a pardon for Tina Peters, the former Mesa County clerk now serving a nine-year sentence for convictions related to providing unauthorized access to voting equipment.

    Oltmann, of Castle Rock, has repeatedly — and falsely — claimed that the 2020 presidential election was not won by Democrat Joe Biden, while calling for the hanging of political opponents. He previously said he wanted to dismember some opponents to send a message, according to the Washington Post, before adding that he was joking.

    In his Dec. 26 announcement video, Oltmann baselessly claimed that Democrats, who have won control of the state amid demographic shifts and anti-Trump sentiment, were in power in Colorado only because of election fraud.

    He said Polis and Secretary of State Jena Griswold, along with 9News anchor Kyle Clark, were part of a “synagogue of Satan.” Polis and Griswold are both Jewish.

    In his announcement, Oltmann painted an apocalyptic picture of the state and said he hoped that three of its elected leaders — Polis, Griswold and Weiser — would all be imprisoned. He pledged to eliminate property taxes, to focus on the “have-nots” and to pardon Peters, whom President Donald Trump has also sought to release by issuing a federal pardon that legal experts say can’t clear Peters of state convictions.

    Oltmann’s decision to join the field is an example of “extreme candidates” from either major party “who file to run but will go nowhere,” predicted Kristi Burton Brown, another former state GOP chair. She now sits on the Colorado State Board of Education.

    She said the size of the Republican primary field was a consequence of Republicans’ difficulties winning statewide races in Colorado. Democrats have won all four constitutional elected offices for two straight election cycles.

    Burton Brown said it “might be a good idea moving forward” to require candidates to do more than just submit paperwork to run for office. That might include a monetary requirement: She said she didn’t support charging candidates significant sums but thought that “requiring some skin in the game” could prevent “unreasonable primaries.”

    [ad_2]

    Seth Klamann

    Source link

  • Lindsey Vonn continues to turn back the clock, qualifying for the Winter Olympics at 41

    [ad_1]

    It’s been one surprise after another lately from Lindsey Vonn. And the announcement that the 41-year-old slopes queen has qualified for the Milano Cortina Olympics in February isn’t the last of it.

    It might have been her post on Instagram that stated unequivocally that this will be the end.

    “I am honored to be able to represent my country one more time, in my 5th and final Olympics!” Vonn said.

    Vonn’s remarkable and inspiring comeback from injuries and a seven-year hiatus from top-level competitive skiing has injected the U.S. team narrative with an irresistible story line. That her quest will culminate in the mountains of northern Italy just two months from now will make it must-watch television and social media video.

    The last two weeks have thrust Vonn back onto the international stage as well as the podium, which she climbed in four of her first five races this season. That includes a spectacular win in the downhill in St. Moritz, Switzerland, on Dec. 12.

    That marked her first World Cup victory since 2018. And now it’s official that Vonn will compete in her fifth Olympics where she won gold in the downhill and bronze in the super-G at the 2010 Games in Vancouver and bronze in the downhill in the 2018 Games in PyeongChang.

    Much of the astonishment circles back to her age. Vonn’s win in St. Moritz made her the oldest woman to win a World Cup race — by seven years. Federica Brignone of Italy set a record a year ago when she won 10 races at age 34.

    She also is the first World Cup winner with titanium implants in her right knee. And she’ll become the first quadragenerian to lead the U.S. Alpine skiiing squad seven years after she had all but retired.

    In a moving column on Feb. 10, 2019, at the World Championships, The Times’ Helene Elliott wrote what essentially was a sendoff for Vonn: “She went all out to the very end, because that’s the only way Lindsey Vonn knew how to ski. She was bruised and battered as she went to the start gate on Sunday for the final race of her career, sore all over and her right eye blackened by the impact of a crash she suffered during a super-giant slalom race earlier in the week at the World Championships. Her ligaments tore and her bones sometimes broke but her competitiveness was never dimmed, never dented, never compromised.”

    Well, 2026 is around the bend and Vonn is back and intact, her competitiveness never compromised still. She has not officially qualified for the Olympics in the super-G, but she’s the fastest American and No. 3 in the world, so count on that as her next headline.

    “Lindsey qualifying for the 2026 Olympic team is a testament to her resilience and dedication, and the remarkable results she’s delivered on the World Cup this season,” Sophie Goldschmidt, U.S. Ski & Snowboard’s president and CEO, said in a statement. “She’s proven once again that elite performance isn’t just about past success, it’s about rising to the moment, race after race.

    “We’re thrilled to cheer her on at the Olympics.”

    [ad_2]

    Steve Henson

    Source link

  • OPINION: Beyond DEI offices, colleges are dismantling all kinds of programs related to equity

    [ad_1]

    It started with Harvard University. Then Notre Dame, Cornell, Ohio State University and the University of Michigan. 

    Colleges are racing to close or rename their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) offices, which serve as the institutional infrastructure to ensure fair opportunity and conditions for all. The pace is disorienting and getting worse: since last January, 181 colleges in all.  

    Often this comes with a formal announcement via mass email, whispering a watered-down name change that implies: “There is nothing to see here. The work will remain the same.” But renaming the offices is something to see, and it changes the work that can be done. 

    Colleges say the changes are needed to comply with last January’s White House executive orders to end “wasteful government DEI programs” and “illegal discrimination” and restore “merit-based opportunity,” prompting them to replace DEI with words like engagement, culture, community, opportunity and belonging. 

    One college went even further this month: The University of Alabama ended two student-run magazines because administrators perceived them to be targeting specific demographics and thus to be out of compliance with Attorney General Pamela Bondi’s anti-discrimination guidance. Students are fighting back while some experts say the move is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. 

    Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter. 

    With the one-year mark of the original disruptive executive orders approaching, the pattern of response is nearly always the same. Announcements of name changes are followed quickly by impassioned pronouncements that schools should “remain committed to our long-standing social justice mission.” 

    University administrators, faculty, students, supporters and alumni need to stand up and call attention to the risks of this widespread renaming.  

    True, there are risks to not complying. The U.S. State Department recently proposed to cut research funding to 38 elite universities in a public-private partnership for what the Trump administration perceived as DEI hiring practices. Universities removed from the partnership will be replaced by schools that the administration perceives to be more merit-based, such as Liberty University and Brigham Young University.  

    In addition to the freezing of critical research dollars, universities are being fined millions of dollars for hiring practices that use an equity lens — even though those practices are merit-based and ensure that all candidates are fairly evaluated.  

    Northwestern University recently paid $75 million to have research funding that had already been approved restored, while Columbia University paid $200 million. Make no mistake: This is extortion. 

    Some top university administrators have resigned under this pressure. Others seem to be deciding that changing the name of their equity office is cheaper than being extorted.  

    Many are clinging to the misguided notion that the name changes do not mean they are any less committed to their equity and justice-oriented missions.  

    As a long-standing faculty member of a major public university, I find this alarming. In what way does backing away from critical, specific language advance social justice missions? 

    In ceding ground on critical infrastructure that centers justice, the universities that are caving are violating a number of historian and author Timothy Snyder’s 20 lessons from the 20th century for fighting tyranny.  

    The first lesson is: “Do not obey in advance.” Many of these changes are not required. Rather, universities are making decisions to comply in advance in order to avoid potential future conflicts.  

    The second is: “Defend institutions.” The name changes and reorganizations convey that this infrastructure is not foundational to university work.  

    What Snyder doesn’t warn about is the loss of critical words that frame justice work.  

    The swift dismantling of the infrastructures that had been advancing social justice goals, especially those secured during the recent responses to racial injustice in the United States and the global pandemic, has been breathtaking.  

    Related: Trump administration cuts canceled this college student’s career start in politics 

    This is personal to me. Over the 15 years since I was hired as a professor and community health equity researcher at Chicago’s only public research institution, the university deepened its commitment to social justice by investing resources to address systemic inequities. 

    Directors were named, staff members hired. Missions were carefully curated. Funding mechanisms were announced to encourage work at the intersections of the roots of injustices. Award mechanisms were carefully worded to describe what excellence looks like in social justice work.  

    Now, one by one, this infrastructure is being deconstructed.  

    The University of Illinois Chicago leadership recently announced that the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Equity and Diversity will be renamed and reoriented as the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Engagement. The explanation noted that this change reflects a narrowed dual focus: engaging internally within the university community and externally with the City of Chicago. 

    This concept of university engagement efforts as two sides of one coin oversimplifies the complexity of the authentic, reciprocal relationship development required by the university to achieve equity goals.  

    As a community engagement scientist, I feel a major loss and unsettling alarm from the renaming of “Equity and Diversity” as “Engagement.” I’ve spent two decades doing justice-centered, community-based participatory research in Chicago neighborhoods with community members. It is doubtful that the work can remain authentic if administrators can’t stand up enough to keep the name. 

    As a professor of public health, I train graduate students on the importance of language and naming. For example, people in low-income neighborhoods are not inherently “at risk” for poor health but rather are exposed to conditions that impact their risk level and defy health equity. Health is “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being,” while health equity is “the state in which everyone has the chance to attain full health potential.” Changing the emphasis from health equity to health focuses the system’s lens on the individual and mutes population impact.  

    Similarly, changing the language around DEI offices is a huge deal. It is the beginning of the end. Pretending it is not is complicity.  

    Jeni Hebert-Beirne is a professor of Community Health Sciences at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Public Health and a public voices fellow of The OpEd Project. 

    Contact the opinion editor at opinion@hechingerreport.org. 

    This story about colleges and DEI was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter. 

    Since you made it to the bottom of this article, we have a small favor to ask. 

    We’re in the midst of our end-of-year campaign, our most important fundraising effort of the year. Thanks to NewsMatch, every dollar you give will be doubled through December 31.

    If you believe stories like the one you just finished matter, please consider pitching in what you can. This effort helps ensure our reporting and resources stay free and accessible to everyone—teachers, parents, policymakers—invested in the future of education.

    Thank you. 
    Liz Willen
    Editor in chief

    Creative Commons License

    Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.

    [ad_2]

    Jeni Hebert-Beirne

    Source link

  • A young man’s journey from Chinese orphanage to high school track star

    [ad_1]

    TONIGHT, A STORY ABOUT RUNNING OUTRUNNING RATHER LIMITS WHILE DEFYING THE ODDS FOR ONE ALABAMA TEENAGER. THIS ALL BEGAN THOUSANDS OF MILES FROM HERE. ONLY ON 13 TONIGHT, BRITTANY DECKER INTRODUCES YOU TO AN OAK MOUNTAIN STUDENT ON THE FAST TRACK. AFTER A JOURNEY THAT SPANS THE GLOBE. I’M GOING TO FOLLOW YOU. DON’T GO TOO FAST. OKAY? BEFORE CHASE EVEN RAN A RACE, BEFORE HE SPOKE A WORD OF ENGLISH. BEFORE HE HAD A FAMILY CHEERING IN THE STANDS. HE HAD THIS. A BRACELET, LEATHER WITH A SINGLE THREAD GIVEN TO A LITTLE BOY IN A CHINESE ORPHANAGE BY THE MAN WHO FIRST TAUGHT HIM HOW TO WALK. NO ONE KNOWS HIS TITLE. THERAPIST. CARE WORKER. ALL THEY KNOW IS HE SAW POTENTIAL IN A CHILD. THE SYSTEM HAD ALREADY GIVEN UP ON. THEY KIND OF DEEM A PERSON WITH ANY TYPE OF DISABILITY AS JUST NOT AT THE HIGH ENOUGH LEVEL FOR SOCIETY. NOW IT’S IN HIS HAND, A REMINDER OF THE MILES BEHIND HIM AND EVERYTHING HE’S STILL CHASING. AFTER ALL, THAT NAME WASN’T AN ACCIDENT. I WANTED TO INCORPORATE HIS CHINESE NAME, WHICH IS TAOTAO, AND SO WE KEPT TAO’S MIDDLE NAME. BUT I TOLD HIM I WAS LIKE, I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP CHASE BECAUSE I THINK GOD WANTS US TO CHASE AFTER HIM. WE KNEW, LIKE, YOU KNOW, GOD HAD CALLED US TO ADOPT A BOY OLDER THAN THEY EXPECTED. 11 AT THE TIME, NOT THE 5 TO 7 YEARS OLD THEY PLANNED FOR A BOY WHOSE FIRST ADOPTION HAD FALLEN THROUGH. A BOY WHO IN CHINA WAS MONTHS AWAY FROM AGING OUT FOREVER. BUT THIS FAMILY REFUSED TO GIVE UP. WE REALLY HAD TO ADVOCATE AND SAY WE WANT HIM APPROVED. IN LATE 2019. HOME. IN JANUARY 2020, JUST DAYS BEFORE FLIGHTS SHUT DOWN, WE WERE ACTUALLY THE LAST FAMILY WITH LIFELINE TO COME BACK FROM CHINA. HE JUMPED ON IN OUR FAMILY AND HADN’T SKIPPED A BEAT. YOU KNOW, WE JUST IMMERSED HIM JUST INTO OUR FAMILY IMMEDIATELY AND HE ADAPTED WELL. HE WAS READY TO GO TO SCHOOL, READY TO MEET NEW PEOPLE. CHASE IN THE ORPHANAGE. CHASE SAYS EDUCATION WASN’T AN OPTION. WITHOUT EDUCATION. YOU CANNOT YOU CANNOT REALLY DO MUCH. BUT IN THE CLASSROOM AT OAK MOUNTAIN HIGH SCHOOL, HE THRIVES. I MET CHASE ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO. OKAY, HERE YOU GO, CHASE. ONE DAY I WAS IN MY ROOM. YOU READY? YES. THERE YOU GO. AND I WAS GOING TO ERASE SOME MATH PROBLEMS OFF THE BOARD. AND CHASE WALKED IN AND HE STARTED ASKING ABOUT THEM. AND A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS I HAD UP THERE WERE AP PRE-CALCULUS AND AP CALCULUS. I CAN DO ARE 12 ANIMALS. PRETTY GOOD? THAT’S GREAT. GOOD JOB. HE’S HARD WORKING AND HE’S VERY DETERMINED AT SCHOOL ON THE TRACK. IN LIFE, NOTHING KEEPS CHASE DOWN, POP BACK UP, BLOODY AND ALL RAN AND FINISHED THAT RACE. AND THEN THEY GAVE HIM THE CHASE LEVEL AWARD. HE DOES HAVE SOME LIMITATIONS, BUT TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, YOU DON’T SEE HIM ON THE TRACK AT ALL. AND IT’S NICE BECAUSE I THINK HE’S A LOT OF TEAMS RECOGNIZE WHO HE IS. AND SO WHEN HE GOES TO MEETS, IT’S A LOT OF CHASE, CHASE, CHASE. HE JUST THE DESIRE THAT HE HAS TO MAKE IT ONCE WITH NO FAMILY, HE NOW WAVES TO HIS OWN IN THE BLEACHERS, A BRACELET IN HIS HAND, A FINISH LINE AHEAD AND A LIFE HE STILL QUITE LITERALLY CHASING. HIS JOURNEY WAS RECOGNIZED STATEWIDE RECENTLY, WHEN THE GOVERNOR HONORED CHASE AT THE ALABAMA GOVERNOR’S COMMITT

    A young man’s journey from Chinese orphanage to high school track star

    Updated: 12:07 AM EST Dec 21, 2025

    Editorial Standards

    Before Chase Lovell ever ran a race, spoke a word of English or had a cheering family in the stands, he had a bracelet.Leather, worn, with a single thread. It was given to him in a Chinese orphanage by the man who first taught him how to walk. No one knew the man’s official title, therapist or caretaker, but he saw potential in a child the system had already given up on.“They kind of deem a person with any kind of disability as just not at the high enough level for society,” said Adam Lovell, Chase’s adoptive father.The bracelet stayed with Chase, a reminder of the miles behind him and everything he’s still chasing. His name, “Chase,” wasn’t chosen by accident.“We kept his Chinese name, Tao Tao, as his middle name, but ‘Chase’? I told him I think God wants us to chase after him,” said Miranda Lovell, his mother.Chase’s adoption was not simple. His family initially planned to adopt a 5 to 7-year-old, but Chase was 11. A previous adoption had fallen through, and he was months away from aging out of the system. But the Lovells refused to give up. “We really had to advocate and say we want him. I wrote more words to China than I ever have, telling them I’m a speech pathologist, we have resources, therapies — we can give him everything he needs,” Miranda Lovell said.Approved in late 2019, Chase arrived home in January 2020, just days before flights shut down worldwide.“He jumped on in our family and hadn’t skipped a beat,” Miranda said.In China, Chase had little access to education.“Without education, you cannot really do much,” he said.But at Oak Mountain High School, he thrives in math, in the classroom, and on the track.One teacher recalls, “I met Chase about two years ago. One day, I was erasing math problems off the board, and Chase walked over asking about them — a lot of the problems were AP pre-calculus and AP calculus.” Chase said, “I can do 12th-grade math pretty good.”On the track, nothing keeps him down. When he fell during a race, the crowd held its breath — but he popped back up and finished strong. His determination earned him the Chase Lovell Award. “He does have some limitations, but you don’t see them on the track. A lot of teams recognize who he is and so when he goes to meets, it’s a lot of, ‘Chase! Chase! Chase!’” said his coach.Once told that “family isn’t for you,” Chase now waves to one in the bleachers. With a bracelet in hand, a finish line ahead, and a life he’s still quite literally chasing, his story is far from over.

    Before Chase Lovell ever ran a race, spoke a word of English or had a cheering family in the stands, he had a bracelet.

    Leather, worn, with a single thread. It was given to him in a Chinese orphanage by the man who first taught him how to walk. No one knew the man’s official title, therapist or caretaker, but he saw potential in a child the system had already given up on.

    “They kind of deem a person with any kind of disability as just not at the high enough level for society,” said Adam Lovell, Chase’s adoptive father.

    The bracelet stayed with Chase, a reminder of the miles behind him and everything he’s still chasing. His name, “Chase,” wasn’t chosen by accident.

    “We kept his Chinese name, Tao Tao, as his middle name, but ‘Chase’? I told him I think God wants us to chase after him,” said Miranda Lovell, his mother.

    Chase’s adoption was not simple. His family initially planned to adopt a 5 to 7-year-old, but Chase was 11. A previous adoption had fallen through, and he was months away from aging out of the system. But the Lovells refused to give up.

    “We really had to advocate and say we want him. I wrote more words to China than I ever have, telling them I’m a speech pathologist, we have resources, therapies — we can give him everything he needs,” Miranda Lovell said.

    Approved in late 2019, Chase arrived home in January 2020, just days before flights shut down worldwide.

    “He jumped on in our family and hadn’t skipped a beat,” Miranda said.

    In China, Chase had little access to education.

    “Without education, you cannot really do much,” he said.

    But at Oak Mountain High School, he thrives in math, in the classroom, and on the track.

    One teacher recalls, “I met Chase about two years ago. One day, I was erasing math problems off the board, and Chase walked over asking about them — a lot of the problems were AP pre-calculus and AP calculus.”

    Chase said, “I can do 12th-grade math pretty good.”

    On the track, nothing keeps him down. When he fell during a race, the crowd held its breath — but he popped back up and finished strong. His determination earned him the Chase Lovell Award.

    “He does have some limitations, but you don’t see them on the track. A lot of teams recognize who he is and so when he goes to meets, it’s a lot of, ‘Chase! Chase! Chase!’” said his coach.

    Once told that “family isn’t for you,” Chase now waves to one in the bleachers. With a bracelet in hand, a finish line ahead, and a life he’s still quite literally chasing, his story is far from over.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Trump administration’s biggest impact on education in 2025 

    [ad_1]

    Even with a conservative think tank’s blueprint detailing how the second Trump administration should reimagine the federal government’s role in education, few might have predicted what actually materialized this year for America’s schools and colleges. 

    Or what might be yet to come. 

    “2025 will go down as a banner year for education: the year we restored merit in higher education, rooted out waste, fraud and abuse, and began in earnest returning education to the states,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon told The Hechinger Report. She listed canceling K-12 grants she called wasteful, investing more in charter schools, ending college admissions that consider race or anything beyond academic achievement and making college more affordable as some of the year’s accomplishments. 

    “Best of all,” she said, “we’ve begun breaking up the federal education bureaucracy and returning education control to parents and local communities. These are reforms conservatives have championed for decades — and in just 12 months, we’ve made them a reality.” 

    Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education. 

    McMahon’s characterization of the year is hardly universal. Earlier this month, Senate Democrats, led by independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, called out some of the administration’s actions this year. They labeled federal changes, especially plans to divide the Education Department’s duties across the federal government, dangerous and likely to cause chaos for schools and colleges. 

    “Already, this administration has cancelled billions of dollars in education programs, illegally withheld nearly $7 billion in formula funds, and proposed to fully eliminate many of the programs included in the latest transfer,” the senators wrote in a letter to Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, chair of the committee that oversees education. “In our minds, that is unacceptable.” 

    So, what really happened to education this year? It was almost impossible for the average observer to keep track of the array of changes across colleges and universities, K-12 schools, early education and education research — and what it has all meant. This is a look back at how the education world was transformed. 

    Related: Tracking Trump: How he’s dismantling the Education Department and more 

    Higher education

    The administration was especially forceful in the higher education arena. It used measures including antidiscrimination law to quickly freeze billions of dollars in higher education research funding, interrupting years-long medical studies and coercing Columbia, Brown, Northwestern and other institutions into handing over multimillion-dollar payments and agreeing to policy changes demanded by the administration.

    A more widespread “compact” promising preference for federal funding to universities that agreed to largely ideological principles had almost no takers. But in the face of government threats, universities and colleges scrapped diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs that provided support based on race and other characteristics, and banned transgender athletes from competing on teams corresponding to genders other than the ones they were assigned at birth.

    As the administration unleashed its set of edicts, Republicans in Congress also expanded taxes on college and university endowments. And the One Big Beautiful Bill Act made other big changes to higher education, such as limiting graduate student borrowing and eliminating certain loan forgiveness programs. That includes public service loan forgiveness for graduates who take jobs with organizations the administration designated as having a “substantial illegal purpose” because they help refugees or transgender youth. In response, states, cities, labor unions and nonprofits immediately filed suit, arguing that the rule violated the First Amendment. 

    The administration has criticized universities, colleges and liberal students for curbing the speech of conservatives by shouting them down or blocking their appearances on campuses. However, it proceeded to revoke the visas of and begin deportation proceedings against international students who joined protests or wrote opinions criticizing Israeli actions in Gaza and U.S. government policy there.  

    Meanwhile, emboldened legislatures and governors in red states pushed back on what faculty could say in classrooms. College presidents including James Ryan at the University of Virginia and Mark Welsh III at Texas A&M were forced out in the aftermath of controversies over these issues. — Jon Marcus

    Related: How Trump 2.0 upended education research and statistics in one year  

    K-12 education

    Since Donald Trump returned to office earlier this year, K-12 schools have lost millions of dollars in sweeping cuts to federal grants, including money that helped schools serve students who are deaf or blind, grants that bolstered the dwindling rural teacher workforce and funding for Wi-Fi hotspots

    Last summer, the Trump administration briefly froze billions of dollars in federal funding for schools on June 30, one day before districts would typically apply to receive it. Although the money was restored in late July, some school leaders said they no longer felt confident they’ll receive all expected federal funds next year. And they are braced for more cuts to federal budgets as the U.S. Department of Education is dismembered.

    That process, as well as the end goal of returning the department’s responsibilities to the states, has raised uncertainty about whether federal money will continue to be earmarked for the same purposes. If the state of Illinois is in charge of federal funding for every school in the state, said Todd Dugan, superintendent of a rural Illinois district, will rural schools still get money to boost student achievement or will the state decide there are more pressing needs?  

    Even as the Trump administration attempts to push more control over education to the states, it has aggressively expanded federal power over school choice and transgender student rights in public schools. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act will create a federal school voucher program, allowing taxpayers to donate up to $1,700 for scholarships that families can use to pay for private school. The program won’t start until 2027, and states can choose whether to participate — setting up potentially divisive fights over new money for education in Democratic-controlled states. 

    Already, some Democratic-led states have come to the defense of schools in funding and legal fights with the federal government over transgender athletes participating in sports. The U.S. departments of Education and Justice launched a special investigations team to look into complaints of Title IX violations, targeting school districts and states that don’t restrict accommodations or civil rights protections for transgender students. Legal experts expect the U.S. Supreme Court to ultimately decide how Title IX — a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education — applies to public schools.

    The federal government directly runs just two systems of schools — one for military families and the other for children of tribal nations. In an executive order signed in January, the president directed both systems to offer parents a portion of federal funding allocated to their children to attend private, religious or charter schools. 

    And as part of the dismantling of the federal Education Department, the Interior Department — which oversees 183 tribal schools across nearly two dozen states — will assume greater control of Indian education programs. In addition to rolling out school choice at its campuses, the department will take over Indian education grants to public schools across the country, Native language programs, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian programs, tribally controlled colleges and universities, and many other institutions. — Ariel Gilreath and Neal Morton

    Related: Trump administration makes good on many Project 2025 education goals

    Early education

    Early education was not at the top of Trump’s agenda when he returned to office. On the campaign trail, when asked if he would support legislation to make child care affordable, he gave an unfocused answer, suggesting tariff revenue could be tapped to bring down costs. Asked a similar question, Vice President JD Vance suggested that care by family members was one potential solution to child care shortages. 

    However, many of the administration’s actions, including cuts to the government workforce and grants, have affected children who depend on federal support. In April, the administration abruptly closed five of 10 regional offices supporting Head Start, the free, federally funded early childhood program for children from low-income families. Head Start program managers worried they would be caught up in a freeze on grant funding that affected all agencies. Even though administration officials said funds would keep flowing to Head Start, some centers reported having problems drawing down their money. The prolonged government shutdown, which ended Nov. 12 after 43 days, also forced some Head Start programs to temporarily close

    Though the shutdown is over, Head Start advocates are still worried. Many of the administration’s actions have been guided by the Project 2025 policy document created by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Project 2025 calls for eliminating Head Start, which serves about 715,000 children from birth to age 5, for a savings of about $12 billion a year. 

    The One Big Beautiful Bill Act contained some perks for parents, including an increase in the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,200. The bill also created a new program called Trump accounts: Families can contribute up to $5,000 each year until a child turns 18, at which point the Trump account will turn into an individual retirement account. For children born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028, the government will provide a $1,000 bonus. Billionaires Michael and Susan Dell have also promised to contribute $250 to the account of each child ages 10 and under who lives in a ZIP code with a median household income of $150,000 or less. 

    That program will launch in summer 2026. — Christina A. Samuels

    Contact staff writer Nirvi Shah at 212-678-3445, on Signal at NirviShah.14 or shah@hechingerreport.org.   

    This story about the Trump administration’s impact on education was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    Since you made it to the bottom of this article, we have a small favor to ask. 

    We’re in the midst of our end-of-year campaign, our most important fundraising effort of the year. Thanks to NewsMatch, every dollar you give will be doubled through December 31.

    If you believe stories like the one you just finished matter, please consider pitching in what you can. This effort helps ensure our reporting and resources stay free and accessible to everyone—teachers, parents, policymakers—invested in the future of education.

    Thank you. 
    Liz Willen
    Editor in chief

    Creative Commons License

    Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.

    [ad_2]

    Nirvi Shah

    Source link

  • Trump administration checks off many Project 2025 education goals

    [ad_1]

    Last year, Project 2025 was a conservative wish list: a grab bag of proposals large and small that would transform the federal government, including in education.

    Months later, many of those wishes have become reality. That includes, at least in part, Project 2025’s ultimate goal of doing away with the Education Department.

    The department still exists — getting rid of it completely would require congressional action— but it is greatly diminished: Much of the department’s work is being farmed out to other federal agencies. Half of its workforce of about 4,100 people have left or been fired. And Education Secretary Linda McMahon wrote after her confirmation that she was leading the department’s “final mission.”

    Eliminating the Education Department was just one of many goals, however. While the administration did not meet all the other tasks in this “to-do” list below, compiled by The Hechinger Report and taken directly from Project 2025, there’s still three more years to go.

    Early childhood

    Eliminate Head Start: NO. Head Start, which provides free preschool for low-income children, still exists, though some individual centers had problems accessing their money because of temporary freezes from the Department of Government Efficiency and the prolonged government shutdown. The federal government also closed five of 10 Head Start regional offices, which collectively served 22 states.

    Pay for in-home child care instead of universal (center-based) daycare: NO. Project 2025 states that “funding should go to parents either to offset the cost of staying home with a child or to pay for familial, in-home childcare.” There have been no moves to fulfill this goal, but the budget reconciliation bill the president signed in July increased the child tax credit and introduced “Trump Accounts” for children under age 18.

    Expand child care for military families: YES. The National Defense Authorization Act, passed on Dec. 17 and sent to the president for his signature, authorizes over $491 million to design and build new child care centers for these families, among other provisions. The Department of Defense provides child care to military families on a sliding scale based on income. However, about 20 percent of military families who need child care can’t get it because there is not enough space.  

    Give businesses an incentive to provide “on-site” child care: NO. Project 2025 states that “across the spectrum of professionalized child care options, on-site care puts the least stress on the parent-child bond.” 

    K-12 education

    Move the National Center for Education Statistics to the Census Bureau; transfer higher education statistics to the Labor Department: NO. Education data collection remains at the Education Department. However, the agency’s capacity has been sharply reduced following mass firings and the termination of key contracts — a development not envisioned in Project 2025. At the same time, Donald Trump directed the center to launch a major new data collection on college admissions to verify that colleges are no longer giving preferences based on race, ethnicity or gender.

    Expand choice for families by making federal funding portable to many school options: PARTIAL. In January, the president signed an executive order encouraging “educational freedom.” One of the order’s provisions requires the departments of Defense and Interior — which run K-12 schools for military families and tribal communities, respectively — to allow parents to use some federal funding meant for their children’s education at private, religious and charter schools. However, that initiative for Indian schools ended up being scaled back after tribes protested. The “big, beautiful” spending bill signed in July created a national voucher program, but states have to opt in to participate.  

    Send money now controlled by the federal government, such as Title I and special education funding, to the states as block grants: NO. In the current fiscal year, about $18.5 billion in Title I money flowed to districts to support low-income students. States received about $14 billion to support educating children with disabilities. Project 2025 envisions giving states that money with no strings attached, which it says would allow more flexibility. While the administration has not lifted requirements for all states, it is considering requests from Indiana, Iowa and Oklahoma that would allow those states to spend their federal money with less government oversight. Also, in his fiscal 2026 budget proposal, Trump floated the idea of consolidating several smaller education programs, such as those supporting rural students, homeless students and after-school activities, into one $2 billion block grant. That would be far less than the combined $6.5 billion set aside for these programs in the current budget. 

    Reject “radical gender ideology” and “critical race theory,” and eliminate requirements to accept such ideology as a condition of receiving federal funds: YES. Immediately after Trump was sworn into office, he reversed a Biden administration rule that included protection of LGBTQ+ students under Title IX, which bans sex-based discrimination in education programs and activities that receive federal money. Trump also signed an executive order threatening to withhold federal dollars from schools over what the order called “gender ideology extremism” and “critical race theory.” In the months since, the administration launched Title IX investigations in school districts where transgender students are allowed to participate on sports teams and use bathrooms that align with their gender identity. It sent letters to schools across the country threatening to pull funding unless they agree to its interpretation of civil rights laws, to include banning diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies and initiatives. The Education Department also pulled federal research grants and investigated schools and colleges over DEI policies it calls discriminatory. 

    Pass a federal “parents’ bill of rights,” modeled after similar bills passed at the state level: NO. House Republicans passed a Parents’ Bill of Rights Act two years ago, which would have required districts to post all curricula and reading materials, require schools receiving Title I money to notify parents of any speakers visiting a school, and mandate at least two teacher-parent conferences each year, among other provisions. The Senate did not take it up, and lawmakers have not reintroduced the bill in this session of Congress. About half of the states have their own version of a parentsʼ bill of rights.

    Shrink the pool of students eligible for free school meals by ending the “community eligibility provision” and reject universal school meal efforts: NO. Under current rules, schools are allowed to provide free lunch to all students, regardless of their family’s income, if the school or district is in a low-income area. That provision remains in place. The Trump administration has not changed income eligibility requirements for free and reduced-price lunch at schools: Families that earn within 185 percent of the federal poverty line still qualify for reduced lunch and those within 130 percent of the poverty line qualify for free lunch.

    Higher education

    Roll back student loan forgiveness and income-driven repayment plans: PARTIAL. Three income-driven repayment plans will be phased out next year and a new one — the Repayment Assistance Plan — will be added. RAP requires borrowers to make payments for 30 years before they qualify for loan forgiveness. The administration also reached a proposed agreement to end even earlier the most controversial repayment plan known as SAVE (Saving on a Valuable Education). Trump officials have referred to the SAVE plan as illegal loan forgiveness. Under the plan, some borrowers were eligible to have their loans cleared after only 10 years, while making minimal payments.

    End Parent PLUS loans: PARTIAL. These loans, which parents take out to help their children, had no limit. They still exist, but as of July 2026, there will be an annual cap of $20,000 and a lifetime limit of $65,000 per child. Grad PLUS loans, which allow graduate students to borrow directly on behalf of themselves, are being phased out. Under the Repayment Assistance Plan, graduates in certain fields, such as medicine, can borrow no more than $50,000 a year, or $200,000 over four years.

    Privatize the federal student loan portfolio: NO. The Trump administration reportedly has been shopping a portion of the federal student loan portfolio to private buyers, but no bids have been made public. Project 2025 also called for eliminating the Federal Student Aid office, which is now housed in the Education Department and oversees student loan programs. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the Treasury Department would be a better home for the office, but no plans for a move have been announced. 

    End public service loan forgiveness: NO. PSLF allows borrowers to have part of their debt erased if they work for the government or in nonprofit public service jobs and make at least 120 monthly payments. The structure remains, but a new rule could narrow the definition of the kinds of jobs that qualify for loan forgiveness. The proposed rule raises concerns that borrowers working for groups that assist immigrants, transgender youth or provide humanitarian aid to Palestinians, for example, could be disqualified from loan forgiveness. The new rule would go into effect in July.

    Rescind Biden-era rules around sexual assault and discrimination: YES. The Department of Education almost immediately jettisoned changes that the Biden administration had made in 2024 to Title IX, which governs how universities and colleges handle cases of sexual assault and discrimination. Under the Biden rules, blocked by a federal judge days before Trump’s inauguration, accused students were no longer guaranteed the right to in-person hearings or to cross-examine their accusers. The Trump Education Department then returned to a policy from the president’s first term, under which students accused of sexual assault will be entitled to confront their accusers, through a designee, which the administration says restores due process but advocates say will discourage alleged victims from coming forward.

    Reform higher education accreditation: YES. In an executive order, Trump made it easier for accreditors to be stripped of their authority and new ones to be approved, saying the existing bodies — which, under federal law, oversee the quality of colleges and universities — have ignored poor student outcomes while pushing diversity, equity and inclusion. Florida and Texas have started setting up their own accreditors and said the administration has agreed to expedite the typically yearslong approval process. The Department of Education has earmarked $7 million to support this work and help colleges and universities switch accreditors. 

    Dismantle DEI programs and efforts: PARTIAL. Though the administration called for eliminating college DEI programs and efforts, most of the colleges that have shut down their DEI offices have done so in response to state-level legislation. Around 400 books removed from the Naval Academy library because of concerns that they contained messages of diversity or inclusion, but most of the books were ultimately returned. The National Science Foundation canceled more than 400 grants related to several topics, including DEI. 

    Jill Barshay, Ariel Gilreath, Meredith Kolodner, Jon Marcus, Neal Morton and Olivia Sanchez contributed to this report. 

    This story about Project 2025 and education was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    Since you made it to the bottom of this article, we have a small favor to ask. 

    We’re in the midst of our end-of-year campaign, our most important fundraising effort of the year. Thanks to NewsMatch, every dollar you give will be doubled through December 31.

    If you believe stories like the one you just finished matter, please consider pitching in what you can. This effort helps ensure our reporting and resources stay free and accessible to everyone—teachers, parents, policymakers—invested in the future of education.

    Thank you. 
    Liz Willen
    Editor in chief

    Creative Commons License

    Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.

    [ad_2]

    Christina A. Samuels

    Source link

  • Court battle begins over Republican challenge to California’s Prop. 50

    [ad_1]

    Republicans and Democrats squared off in court Monday in a high-stakes battle over the fate of California’s Proposition 50, which reconfigures the state’s congressional districts and could ultimately help determine which party controls the U.S. House in the 2026 midterms.

    Dozens of California politicians and Sacramento insiders — including GOP Assembly members and Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell — have given depositions in the case or could be called to testify in a federal courtroom in Los Angeles over the next few days.

    The GOP wants the three-judge panel to temporarily block California’s new district map, claiming it is unconstitutional and illegally favors Latino voters.

    An overwhelming majority of California voters approved Proposition 50 on Nov. 4 after Gov. Gavin Newsom pitched the redistricting plan as a way to counter partisan gerrymandering in Texas and other GOP-led states. Democrats acknowledged the new map would weaken Republicans’ voting power in California, but argued that it would just be a temporary measure to try to restore the national political balance.

    Attorneys for the GOP cannot challenge the new redistricting map on the grounds that it disenfranchises swaths of California Republicans. In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that complaints of partisan gerrymandering have no path in federal court.

    But the GOP can bring claims of racial discrimination. They argue that California legislators drew the new congressional maps based on race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment, which prohibits governments from denying citizens the right to vote based on race or color.

    Republicans face an uphill struggle in blocking the new map before the 2026 midterms. The hearing comes just a few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Texas to temporarily keep its new congressional map — a move that Newsom’s office says bodes poorly for Republicans trying to block California’s map.

    “In letting Texas use its gerrymandered maps, the Supreme Court noted that California’s maps, like Texas’s, were drawn for lawful reasons,” Brandon Richards, a spokesperson for Newsom, said in a statement. “That should be the beginning and the end of this Republican effort to silence the voters of California.”

    In Texas, GOP leaders drew up new congressional district lines after President Trump openly pressed them to give Republicans five more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. A federal court blocked the map, finding racial considerations probably made the Texas map unconstitutional. But a few days later, the Supreme Court granted Texas’ request to pause that ruling, signaling that they view the Texas case — and this one in California — as part of a national politically motivated redistricting battle.

    “The impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California),” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. argued, “was partisan advantage pure and simple.”

    The fact that the Supreme Court order and Alito’s concurrence in the Texas case went out of their way to mention California is not a good sign for California Republicans, said Richard L. Hasen, professor of law and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law.

    “It’s hard to prove racial predominance in drawing a map — that race predominated over partisanship or other traditional districting principles,” Hasen said. “Trying to get a preliminary injunction, there’s a higher burden now, because it would be changing things closer to the election, and the Supreme Court signaled in that Texas ruling that courts should be wary of making changes.”

    On Nov. 4, California voters approved Proposition 50, a measure to scrap a congressional map drawn up by the state’s independent redistricting commission and replace it with a map drawn up by legislators to favor Democrats through 2030.

    On Monday, a key plaintiff, Assemblymember David J. Tangipa (R-Fresno) — who serves on the Assembly Elections Committee — testified that the legislative panel was given only four days to analyze the redistricted maps and was not allowed to vote on them.

    “In the language of the bill, it actually states that the Assembly and Senate election committee prepared these maps,” Tangipa said. “This was a lie.”

    Tangipa claimed his Democratic colleagues repeatedly brought up increased Black, Latino and Asian representation to further their argument for redistricting.

    “They were forcing, through emergency action, maps upon us to dismantle the independent redistricting commission,” Tangipa said. “They were using emotionally charged arguments, racial justifications and polarized arguments to pigeonhole us.”

    Defense attorneys, however, referenced multiple instances in depositions and online posts where Tangipa had claimed that there was some “partisan” or “political” purpose for the existence of Proposition 50. Tangipa denied this and maintained that he believed that the redistricting effort was race-conscious since his conversations on the Assembly floor.

    The hearing began with attorneys for the GOPhoming in on the new map’s Congressional District 13, which currently encompasses Merced, Stanislaus as well as parts of San Joaquin and Fresno counties, along with parts of Stockton. When Mitchell drew up the map, they argued, he overrepresented Latino voters as a “predominant consideration” over political leanings.

    They called to the stand RealClearPolitics elections analyst Sean Trende, who said he observed an “appendage” in the new District 13, which extended partially into the San Joaquin Valley and put a crack in the new rendition of District 9.

    “From my experience [appendages] are usually indicative of racial gerrymandering,” Trende said. “When the choice came between politics and race, it was race that won out.”

    Defense attorneys, however, pressed Trende on whether the shift in Latino voters toward Republican candidates in the last election could have informed the new district boundaries, rather than racial makeup.

    The defense referenced a sworn statement by Trende in the Texas redistricting case: the Proposition 50 map, he said then, was “drawn with partisan objectives in mind; in particular, it was drawn to improve Democratic prospects” to neutralize additional Republican seats.

    Many legal scholars say that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Texas case means California probably will keep its new map.

    “It was really hard before the Texas case to make a racial gerrymandering claim like the plaintiffs were stating, and it’s only gotten harder in the last two weeks,” said Justin Levitt, a professor of law at Loyola Marymount University.

    Hours after Californians voted in favor of Proposition 50, Tangipa and the California Republican Party filed a lawsuit alleging that the map enacted in Proposition 50 for California’s congressional districts is designed to favor Latino voters over others.

    The Department of Justice also filed a complaint in the case, contending that the new congressional map uses race as a proxy for politics and manipulated district lines “in the name of bolstering the voting power of Hispanic Californians because of their race.”

    Mitchell, the redistricting expert who drew up the maps, is likely to be a key figure in this week’s battle. In the days leading up to the hearing, attorneys sparred over whether Mitchell would testify and whether he should turn over his email correspondence with legislators. Mitchell’s attorneys argued that he had legislative privilege.

    Attorneys for the GOP have seized on public comments made by Mitchell that the “number one thing” he started thinking about was “drawing a replacement Latino majority/minority district in the middle of Los Angeles” and the “first thing” he and his team did was “reverse” the California Citizens Redistricting Commission’s earlier decision to eliminate a Latino district from L.A.

    Some legal experts, however, say that is not, in itself, a problem.

    “What [Mitchell] said was, essentially, ‘I paid attention to race,’” Levitt said. “But there’s nothing under existing law that’s wrong with that. The problem comes when you pay too much attention to race at the exclusion of all of the other redistricting factors.”

    Other legal experts say that what matters is not the intent of Mitchell or California legislators, but the California voters who passed Proposition 50.

    “Regardless of what Paul Mitchell or legislative leaders thought, they were just making a proposal to the voters,” said Hasen, who filed an amicus brief in support of the state. “So it’s really the voters’ intent that matters. And if you look at what was actually presented to the voters in the ballot pamphlet, there was virtually nothing about race there.”

    [ad_2]

    Jenny Jarvie, Christopher Buchanan

    Source link

  • Commentary: Is Newsom blazing a path to the White House? Running a fool’s errand? Let’s discuss

    [ad_1]

    Gavin Newsom is off and running, eyeing the White House as he enters the far turn and his final year as California governor.

    The track record for California Democrats and the presidency is not a good one. In the nearly 250 years of these United States, not one Left Coast Democrat has ever been elected president. Kamala Harris is just the latest to fail. (Twice.)

    Can Newsom break that losing streak and make history in 2028?

    Faithful readers of this column — both of you — certainly know how I feel.

    Garry South disagrees.

    The veteran Democratic campaign strategist, who has been described as possessing “a pile-driving personality and blast furnace of a mouth” — by me, actually — has never lacked for strong and colorful opinions. Here, in an email exchange, we hash out our differences.

    Barabak: You once worked for Newsom, did you not?

    South: Indeed I did. I was a senior strategist in his first campaign for governor. It lasted 15 months in 2008 and 2009. He exited the race when we couldn’t figure out how to beat Jerry Brown in a closed Democratic primary.

    I happen to be the one who wrote the catchy punch line for Newsom’s speech to the state Democratic convention in 2009, that the race was a choice between “a stroll down memory lane vs. a sprint into the future.”

    We ended up on memory lane.

    Barabak: Do you still advise Newsom, or members of his political team?

    South: No, though he and I are in regular contact and have been since his days as lieutenant governor. I know many of his staff and consultants, but don’t work with them in any paid capacity. Also, the governor’s sister and I are friends.

    Barabak: You observed Newsom up close in that 2010 race. What are his strengths as a campaigner?

    South: Newsom is a masterful communicator, has great stage presence, cuts a commanding figure and can hold an audience in the palm of his hand when he’s really on. He has a mind like a steel trap and never forgets anything he is told or reads.

    I’ve always attributed his amazing recall to the struggle he has reading, due to his lifelong struggle with severe dyslexia. Because it’s such an arduous effort for Newsom to read, what he does read is emblazoned on his mind in seeming perpetuity.

    Barabak: Demerits, or weaknesses?

    South: Given his remarkable command of facts and data and mastery of the English language, he can sometimes run on too long. During that first gubernatorial campaign, when he was still mayor of San Francisco, he once gave a seven-hour State of the City address.

    Barabak: Fidel Castro must have been impressed!

    South: It wasn’t as bad as sounds: It was broken into 10 “Webisodes” on his YouTube channel. But still …

    Barabak: So let’s get to it. I think Newsom’s chances of being elected president are somewhere between slim and none — and slim was last seen alongside I-5, in San Ysidro, thumbing a ride to Mexico.

    You don’t agree.

    South: I don’t agree at all. I think you’re underestimating the Trumpian changes wrought (rot?) upon our political system over the past 10 years.

    The election of Trump, a convicted felon, not once but twice, has really blown to hell the conventional paradigms we’ve had for decades in terms of how we assess the viability of presidential candidates — what state they’re from, their age, if they have glitches in their personal or professional life.

    Not to mention, oh, their criminal record, if they have one.

    The American people actually elected for a second term a guy who fomented a rebellion against his own country when he was president the first time, including an armed assault on our own national capitol in which a woman was killed and for which he was rightly impeached. It’s foolish not to conclude that the old rules, the old conventional wisdom about what voters will accept and what they will not, are out the window for good.

    It also doesn’t surprise me that you pooh-pooh Newsom’s prospects. It’s typical of the home-state reporting corps to guffaw when their own governor is touted as a presidential candidate.

    One, familiarity breeds contempt. Two, a prophet is without honor in his own country.

    Barabak: I’ll grant you a couple of points.

    I’m old enough to remember when friends in the Arkansas political press corps scoffed at the notion their governor, the phenomenally gifted but wildly undisciplined Bill Clinton, could ever be elected president.

    I also remember those old Clairol hair-color ads: “The closer he gets … the better you look!” (Google it, kids). It’s precisely the opposite when it comes to presidential hopefuls and the reporters who cover them day-in, day-out.

    And you’re certainly correct, the nature of what constitutes scandal, or disqualifies a presidential candidate, has drastically changed in the Trump era.

    All of that said, certain fundamentals remain the same. Harking back to that 1992 Clinton campaign, it’s still the economy, stupid. Or, put another way, it’s about folks’ lived experience, their economic security, or lack thereof, and personal well-being.

    Newsom is, for the moment, a favorite among the chattering political class and online activists because a) those are the folks who are already engaged in the 2028 race and b) many of them thrill to his Trumpian takedowns of the president on social media.

    When the focus turns to matters affecting voters’ ability to pay for housing, healthcare, groceries, utility bills and to just get by, Newsom’s opponents will have a heyday trashing him and California’s steep prices, homelessness and shrinking middle class.

    Kamala Harris twice bid unsuccessfully for the White House. Her losses kept alive an unbroken string of losses by Left Coast Democrats.

    (Kent Nishimura / Getty Images)

    South: It’s not just the chattering class.

    Newsom’s now the leading candidate among rank-and-file Democrats. They had been pleading — begging — for years that some Democratic leader step out of the box, step up to the plate, and fight back, giving Trump a dose of his own medicine. Newsom has been meeting that demand with wit, skill and doggedness — not just on social media, but through passage of Proposition 50, the Democratic gerrymandering measure.

    And Democrats recognize and appreciate it

    Barabak: Hmmm. Perhaps I’m somewhat lacking in imagination, but I just can’t picture a world where Democrats say, “Hey, the solution to our soul-crushing defeat in 2024 is to nominate another well-coiffed, left-leaning product of that bastion of homespun Americana, San Francisco.”

    South: Uh, Americans twice now have elected a president not just from New York City, but who lived in an ivory tower in Manhattan, in a penthouse with a 24-carat-gold front door (and, allegedly, gold-plated toilet seats). You think Manhattan is a soupçon more representative of middle America than San Francisco?

    Like I said, state of origin is less important now after the Trump precedent.

    Barabak: Trump was a larger-than-life — or at least larger-than-Manhattan — celebrity. Geography wasn’t an impediment because he had — and has — a remarkable ability, far beyond my reckoning, to present himself as a tribune of the working class, the downtrodden and economically struggling Americans, even as he spreads gold leaf around himself like a kid with a can of Silly String.

    Speaking of Kamala Harris, she hasn’t ruled out a third try at the White House in 2028. Where would you place your money in a Newsom-Harris throwdown for the Democratic nomination? How about Harris in the general election, against whomever Republicans choose?

    South: Harris running again in 2028 would be like Michael Dukakis making a second try for president in 1992. My God, she not only lost every swing state, and the electoral college by nearly 100 votes, Harris also lost the popular vote — the first Democrat to do so in 20 years.

    If she doesn’t want to embarrass herself, she should listen to her home-state voters, who in the latest CBS News/YouGov poll said she shouldn’t run again — by a margin of 69-31. (Even 52% of Democrats said no). She’s yesterday’s news.

    Barabak: Seems as though you feel one walk down memory lane was quite enough. We’ll see if Harris — and, more pertinently, Democratic primary voters — agree.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • Run to Feed the Hungry 2025: Recaps from this year’s Sacramento Thanksgiving tradition

    [ad_1]

    The 32nd annual Run to Feed the Hungry is now underway, bringing a record number of participants to the Thanksgiving tradition to benefit the Sacramento Food Bank and Family Services.Organizers say it’s the largest Thanksgiving Day fun run in the country. It’s also the biggest fundraiser of the year for Sacramento Food Bank.The Nov. 27 event for 2025 offers a 5-kilometer or 10-kilometer run or walk. People will also join virtually and get a bib and shirt.The Sacramento Food Bank and Family Services helps hundreds of thousands of people get food assistance in Sacramento County each month through a network of 111 partner agencies. Last year, the organization distributed the equivalent of 33.2 million meals to an average of 309,285 people each month. This year, food banks have experienced increased demand. Days ahead of the fun run, the 2025 Run to Feed the Hungry had already set a new registration record, topping last year’s record of 31,660 participants on Monday. At the first event in 1994, there were 796 runners and walkers.Around 4:30 p.m. Wednesday, organizers said registration for the run had sold out, with 34,050 runners. It’s the first time the event has sold out in its 32-year history.| MORE | A look at the weather for Run to Feed the HungryHere is what else you should know about this year’s event, which KCRA 3 and My58 help to sponsor. Live updates from Run to Feed the Hungry 9:15 a.m.: The runner who won the 10K just crossed the finish line for the 5K seconds before the 15-minute mark.9 a.m.: The 5K is now underway.8:48 a.m.: The first female runner finished seconds before the 34-minute mark.8:44 a.m.: The first three participants for the 10K race finished in under 30 minutes.8:15 a.m.: The 10K race began with the elite runners taking the lead.8 a.m.: This year’s run will provide 4 million meals to those in need.7:30 a.m.: Traffic expert and DJ Brian Hickey gives a preview of what music to expect during the run.7 a.m.: Some runners are already showing up to prepare for the fun run.6 a.m.: KCRA 3’s Deirdre Fitzpatrick and Teo Torres get an early look at the start of the course before the sunrise. Where are the road closures for Run to Feed the Hungry?Watch the video below for a quick snapshot of closures.Where does Run to Feed the Hungry take place?The event starts on J Street, west of the entrance of Sacramento State, and runs a loop through the East Sacramento neighborhood. The course ends at the Scottish Rite Temple at 56th and H streets. View the course map here.People usually park at Sac State and in the surrounding neighborhood. Event organizers say there is free bike parking near the start line. View the parking map here.Note: The J Street entrance to Sac State will be closed until after the race finishes. Are there race awards?Yes.People can choose to have chip timing and join a timed runner’s corral to compete for an award.The top three finishers in each age group will get a medal, and the top three overall men and women in the 5K and 10K will receive plaques and prize money.The top three masters (age 40 or older) among men and women will also receive plaques and prize money.Learn more here.How to check Run to Feed the Hungry race resultsYou can find out what time runners completed the run here. What else should I know?No bikes, skateboards, or scooters are allowed. People using strollers are not allowed in the timed races but are encouraged to sign up for the untimed events.Refunds and transfers are not available.Click here for more FAQs from organizers.Celebrating thankfulnessShare photos of what you’re thankful for this holiday season.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter

    The 32nd annual Run to Feed the Hungry is now underway, bringing a record number of participants to the Thanksgiving tradition to benefit the Sacramento Food Bank and Family Services.

    Organizers say it’s the largest Thanksgiving Day fun run in the country. It’s also the biggest fundraiser of the year for Sacramento Food Bank.

    The Nov. 27 event for 2025 offers a 5-kilometer or 10-kilometer run or walk. People will also join virtually and get a bib and shirt.

    The Sacramento Food Bank and Family Services helps hundreds of thousands of people get food assistance in Sacramento County each month through a network of 111 partner agencies. Last year, the organization distributed the equivalent of 33.2 million meals to an average of 309,285 people each month.

    This year, food banks have experienced increased demand.

    Days ahead of the fun run, the 2025 Run to Feed the Hungry had already set a new registration record, topping last year’s record of 31,660 participants on Monday. At the first event in 1994, there were 796 runners and walkers.

    Around 4:30 p.m. Wednesday, organizers said registration for the run had sold out, with 34,050 runners. It’s the first time the event has sold out in its 32-year history.

    | MORE | A look at the weather for Run to Feed the Hungry

    Here is what else you should know about this year’s event, which KCRA 3 and My58 help to sponsor.

    Live updates from Run to Feed the Hungry

    9:15 a.m.: The runner who won the 10K just crossed the finish line for the 5K seconds before the 15-minute mark.

    9 a.m.: The 5K is now underway.

    8:48 a.m.: The first female runner finished seconds before the 34-minute mark.

    8:44 a.m.: The first three participants for the 10K race finished in under 30 minutes.

    8:15 a.m.: The 10K race began with the elite runners taking the lead.

    8 a.m.: This year’s run will provide 4 million meals to those in need.

    7:30 a.m.: Traffic expert and DJ Brian Hickey gives a preview of what music to expect during the run.


    7 a.m.: Some runners are already showing up to prepare for the fun run.

    6 a.m.: KCRA 3’s Deirdre Fitzpatrick and Teo Torres get an early look at the start of the course before the sunrise.

    Where are the road closures for Run to Feed the Hungry?

    Watch the video below for a quick snapshot of closures.

    Where does Run to Feed the Hungry take place?

    The event starts on J Street, west of the entrance of Sacramento State, and runs a loop through the East Sacramento neighborhood. The course ends at the Scottish Rite Temple at 56th and H streets. View the course map here.

    People usually park at Sac State and in the surrounding neighborhood. Event organizers say there is free bike parking near the start line. View the parking map here.

    Note: The J Street entrance to Sac State will be closed until after the race finishes.

    Are there race awards?

    Yes.

    People can choose to have chip timing and join a timed runner’s corral to compete for an award.

    The top three finishers in each age group will get a medal, and the top three overall men and women in the 5K and 10K will receive plaques and prize money.

    The top three masters (age 40 or older) among men and women will also receive plaques and prize money.

    Learn more here.

    How to check Run to Feed the Hungry race results

    You can find out what time runners completed the run here.

    What else should I know?

    No bikes, skateboards, or scooters are allowed. People using strollers are not allowed in the timed races but are encouraged to sign up for the untimed events.

    Refunds and transfers are not available.

    Click here for more FAQs from organizers.

    Celebrating thankfulness

    Share photos of what you’re thankful for this holiday season.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter

    [ad_2]

    Source link