Speaker 1: Vouchers is the name and school choices the game. There
Speaker 1: are more lawsuits of Bruin and Scott has the story
Speaker 1: Scott Well.
Speaker 2: We have a pair of articles about efforts for and
Speaker 2: against school voucher programs. First, from Maine, Crosspoint Church is
Speaker 2: appealing a ruling that requires religious schools in state tuition
Speaker 2: program to comply with the state's anti discrimination law, which
Speaker 2: protects LGBTQ students and staff. This follows the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: decision that allowed religious schools to participate in the program
Speaker 2: in the first place. The church argues that Maine lawmakers
Speaker 2: are targeting religious institutions by enforcing the law. Another similar
Speaker 2: lawsuit involves the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland. Both cases
Speaker 2: are being appealed after federal judge's ruling, which may be
Speaker 2: reviewed by a higher court. Next, we go to Nebraska.
Speaker 2: The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that a ballot measure to
Speaker 2: repeal a law providing taxpayer funded private school tuition can
Speaker 2: appear on the November ballot. The court rejected claims that
Speaker 2: the measure illegally targeted a government of propreation. Nebraska Secretary
Speaker 2: of State Bob Envin Evnin Bob Evnin had initially certified
Speaker 2: the repeal, but later claimed it was a mistake and
Speaker 2: sought to withdraw his certification. The court disagreed, stating that
Speaker 2: once certified, the measure could not be revoked. Public school
Speaker 2: advocates who gathered signatures for the repeal praised the decision,
Speaker 2: while school choice proponents are preparing to campaign against it.
Speaker 2: These articles are from National Catholic Reporter by Religion News
Speaker 2: Service on September tenth, twenty twenty four, and AP News
Speaker 2: by Marjorie A. Beck on September thirteenth, twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Scott, and I have my first question for you,
Speaker 1: all right, So, how do differing interpretations of the law
Speaker 1: reflect broader societal tensions between religious freedom and anti discrimination protections.
Speaker 2: Well, I think what we're seeing here is just that
Speaker 2: I think we're seeing different interpretations of the law by
Speaker 2: the same kinds of bodies that had different opinions before.
Speaker 2: We see that there's a shift happening here. There's a change.
Speaker 2: Most notice noticeably, the change is happening in the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: A few years ago, we wouldn't expect court, the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court to be supporting uh funneling public funds to private
Speaker 2: education institutions. But apparently that that's okay now, And so
Speaker 2: I don't want to say it's unconstitutional per se, because
Speaker 2: technically the Supreme Court it's their job to interpret the Constitution.
Speaker 2: So technically what they're doing is correct constitutionally by definition. Now,
Speaker 2: you could argue that they're going against past history, which
Speaker 2: I think is what's happening here. We're seeing that that
Speaker 2: there's this conflict. So we have the group that want
Speaker 2: to discriminate basically, which which to me is is baffling. Here,
Speaker 2: I want to read a quote on that note here,
Speaker 2: and I know I'm getting sidetracks within sidetracks here, but
Speaker 2: this is here's what they said in the article. An
Speaker 2: attorney for Cross Point Church in Bangor accused main lawmakers
Speaker 2: of apply eying the anti discrimination lot to create a
Speaker 2: barrier for religious schools. After the hard fought Supreme Court victory.
Speaker 2: The main legislature largely deprived this is a quote. The
Speaker 2: main legislature largely deprived the client of the fruits of
Speaker 2: their victory by amending the law, said David hack Hacker
Speaker 2: from the First Liberty Institute, which filed the appeal this
Speaker 2: week to the First US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.
Speaker 2: Here's the stinger. Here, it's engineered to target a specific
Speaker 2: religious group. That's unconstitutional. And so, going back to what
Speaker 2: you were asking about the tensions between religious freedom and
Speaker 2: the anti discrimination protections, here we have religious groups that
Speaker 2: are specifically saying, if you tell me I can't discriminate,
Speaker 2: that's going against my religion.
Speaker 3: I mean, that is just a that is literally saying
Speaker 3: the quiet.
Speaker 1: Part out loud.
Speaker 2: I mean, you couldn't have much of a bigger admission
Speaker 2: than that. They're saying. Nobody said anything about Christianity. No,
Speaker 2: it was about discrimination. If you accept these funds, you
Speaker 2: can't discriminate. Wait a minute, why are you picking on
Speaker 2: Christians like that?
Speaker 3: Whoops?
Speaker 1: Say there.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's definitely characteristic of the types of things
Speaker 2: that we cover very often on the nonprofits and it
Speaker 2: perfectly illustrates that tension that you're talking about. We have
Speaker 2: religious groups that want to be free to discriminate because
Speaker 2: of their religion, and then we have the government whose job,
Speaker 2: in theory at least, is to protect the rights of
Speaker 2: everybody from being discriminated against. And so you know, it's
Speaker 2: I don't think it's going to be going and anytime soon.
Speaker 2: But I'm not surprised that we have so many stories
Speaker 2: like this on just this topic.
Speaker 1: You know, it's so interesting, And then AJM want to
Speaker 1: bring you into it, because like this is just nothing
Speaker 1: but a circulation of history. If you guys remember, you know,
Speaker 1: for those of you all who may be out there
Speaker 1: in Internet land who are old enough to remember that
Speaker 1: Liberty University and Bob Jones University were told specifically and
Speaker 1: they lost the Supreme Court case back in this say
Speaker 1: that said that if you want to receive government funds,
Speaker 1: you cannot discriminate against who you could have coming to
Speaker 1: your school. And at that time they were actively keeping
Speaker 1: out black students from their schools. I would love to
Speaker 1: ask the black students at the time who applied to
Speaker 1: go to Bob Jones University and Liberty University, what the
Speaker 1: fuck is wrong with you? But I digress. They said
Speaker 1: to them, hey, you cannot discriminate your emissions, so you
Speaker 1: have to or let them in if you want to
Speaker 1: get funds, right, and they reluctantly did it. And then
Speaker 1: then they changed their politics to be, you know, against abortion,
Speaker 1: which historically they weren't. Just the way they can rally
Speaker 1: the right. But you know, that's a different story and
Speaker 1: it's a different topic. So but I found it like
Speaker 1: so ironic that religious institutions like Liberty University, like Bob
Speaker 1: Jones University, it's basically doing the same damn thing all
Speaker 1: over again in twenty twenty four. I mean, o MG.
Speaker 1: But this is my issue, and this is what I'm
Speaker 1: concerned about. And then, AG, I want you to respond.
Speaker 1: My concern is that now the target is LGBTQI plus people,
Speaker 1: and the argument could be, of course, we can discriminate
Speaker 1: against the LGBTQ community because their mere existence is sinful.
Speaker 1: God doesn't like these people, therefore we don't like these people,
Speaker 1: and therefore we can discriminate. AJ Now that I have
Speaker 1: brought that up, what are your.
Speaker 4: Thoughts, Scott said? He said he was not surprised, and
Speaker 4: here I am why am I not surprised that a
Speaker 4: religious organization is asking basically for permission to be hateful.
Speaker 4: Two of the schools involved in the lawsuit in Maine,
Speaker 4: Cross Point Church and Saint Dominic's Academy, which is a
Speaker 4: Catholic church. I tend to not follow these anti excuminatory laws,
Speaker 4: and this allows a qual any school participating in the
Speaker 4: tuition program religious or not to buide by the main
Speaker 4: Human Rights Act. This Act includes protections for LGBTQ students
Speaker 4: and faculty, so it goes for both all of the
Speaker 4: students and the people that were there, the teachers, the janitor, anybody.
Speaker 4: But so right here, these are protections for gender identity,
Speaker 4: for example, for expression, for sexual orientation, and they're also
Speaker 4: made it illegal for these types of schools or institutions
Speaker 4: to force students into conversion therapy, which was only banned
Speaker 4: very recently in twenty nineteen in Maine, and there are
Speaker 4: still twenty states in the United States that allow conversion therapy,
Speaker 4: including Oklahoma, Nebraska, Louisiana, and Texas. Right, and these kinds
Speaker 4: of school want to be able to use public school
Speaker 4: funds and they want to draw them for the vultures
Speaker 4: and then do eaching programs, all the while discriminating freely
Speaker 4: against LGBTQ people the same way that they discriminated back
Speaker 4: then against black people.
Speaker 1: You know, I would just want to tell these people
Speaker 1: like listen, yeah, go ahead to discriminate all you want,
Speaker 1: but you can't use taxpayer moneys in order for you
Speaker 1: to fund to run.
Speaker 3: Teams obvious, yeah, forward, Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean like it was the same way with
Speaker 1: Liberty University and Bob Jones University, Like, hey, if you
Speaker 1: don't want to let black people in, you can't get fundled,
Speaker 1: you can't get federal funding, right yeah, And it's the
Speaker 1: same way with these particular schools, like listen, if you
Speaker 1: want to take advantage of getting state state funding in
Speaker 1: order for you to operate, then you can't discriminate. If
Speaker 1: you want to discriminate, then do it on your own dine,
Speaker 1: don't do it on ours.
Speaker 3: Right yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2: And it's not just uh, you know, racial issues too,
Speaker 2: there's also LGBTQ issues as you mentioned, but also on
Speaker 2: hiring practices too. You know, if if they accept, if
Speaker 2: they accept these monies, then they not only have a
Speaker 2: responsibility to their students, but also to their faculty and staff.
Speaker 2: And so that's been a that's been a rubbing point
Speaker 2: as well. And so yeah, it it boils down to this.
Speaker 2: You know, we want religious freedom, and that means we
Speaker 2: also want to be able to break these other laws
Speaker 2: about discrimination. And you know it's really it's really uh
Speaker 2: an offensive privileged position, and it's it's surprising to me
Speaker 2: it's not surprising that they're doing it, but it's surprising
Speaker 2: to me that they are able to uh say these
Speaker 2: kind of things out in public in front of people,
Speaker 2: and uh yeah and there, and they're they're expecting to
Speaker 2: be respected for that, like they're like they're sticking with
Speaker 2: their religious guns here, and it's it's, I don't know,
Speaker 2: it's really appalling. If it's just another example of where
Speaker 2: where's the harm and religion? If if you know, if
Speaker 2: it takes if good people do good things and bad
Speaker 2: people do bad thing, but it takes religious something like
Speaker 2: religion to make good people do bad things. Here's some
Speaker 2: good people doing presumably doing some bad things, and it's
Speaker 2: because of this, I mean, it's I don't know. I
Speaker 2: almost want to just say, I'm not going to comment.
Speaker 2: You can keep talking, because you're making my case for
Speaker 2: me kind of a thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, Like you know, the more that you actually
Speaker 1: keep using these hateful narratives in order for you to
Speaker 1: push your point, the more that you are look, you know,
Speaker 1: making our argument work for.
Speaker 3: Us, exactly. Yeah.
Speaker 1: But I want to ask you both, what do you
Speaker 1: think or how do you think the personal stories like
Speaker 1: those families involved in these lawsuits are shaping or can
Speaker 1: shape public opinion. Ag I want you to chime in
Speaker 1: on that, and then Scott, I want you to reply.
Speaker 4: So, I think these stories actually shape both sides. They
Speaker 4: can shape this side of religious people where they feel
Speaker 4: more empowered to come out and say all these hateful
Speaker 4: things and to demand to continue to demand unreasonable rewards.
Speaker 4: I guess you could say with the tuition programs, because
Speaker 4: they think that no matter what rules they said, they
Speaker 4: still should be able to get the benefits. And at
Speaker 4: the same time, it brings light to all this hatefulness,
Speaker 4: and it allows people to realize how harmful this is becoming,
Speaker 4: and how we cannot allow all these religious organizations to
Speaker 4: draw from public funding that could go to public schools
Speaker 4: and use it for their indoctrination purposes.
Speaker 1: Scrit what about you? What do you think? How?
Speaker 3: I think AJ nailed it right there.
Speaker 2: I think that personal stories added an element to the
Speaker 2: to the data. Really, you know, we as human beings
Speaker 2: were very storytelling oriented. We try to describe things using stories.
Speaker 2: Our memory works based on storytelling associations, and so hearing
Speaker 2: a story of real harm that's being caused by these
Speaker 2: policies can have a huge impact on somebody.
Speaker 3: As as a statistics teacher, I also.
Speaker 2: Worry about having individual stories have too having too much
Speaker 2: of an impact, right we say we often say that anecdotes,
Speaker 2: the plural of anecdotes is not data. And so I
Speaker 2: think we just lost Cynthia. So we'll just keep talking
Speaker 2: until we get her back here. But but so having
Speaker 2: these personal stories too for for people to latch on
Speaker 2: can make a big difference here. And I want to
Speaker 2: point out something that that I saw in the Nebraska
Speaker 2: in the story on the Nebraska a ballot initiative AJ
Speaker 2: and then maybe you can you can comment on what
Speaker 2: I saw here.
Speaker 3: But I mean, not only are we uh.
Speaker 2: Is it is it this being harmful to people, but
Speaker 2: it's really undermining the the voice of the public. Right,
Speaker 2: It's really I mean, we have this this what was
Speaker 2: he Secretary of State? Right not only does he want
Speaker 2: to uh support these school voucher programs, but he also
Speaker 2: wants to keep the public from airing their opinion on it.
Speaker 2: And and that's really what what the ballot initiative was for.
Speaker 3: And so Cynthia, we went on to another question while you.
Speaker 2: Were away, So I hope we can reconnect here when
Speaker 2: when I'm done with this. But but yeah, so, I mean,
Speaker 2: I I read when I was doing my research for this,
Speaker 2: I came across a claim in Forbes magazine, and I
Speaker 2: couldn't verify this, so I'm just offering it for food
Speaker 2: for thought.
Speaker 3: But their claim was that no.
Speaker 2: Voucher proposal has ever survived a direct vote by a
Speaker 2: state's taxpayers. And whether or not that's true, that's certainly
Speaker 2: what's what's happening here is that there's a clear majority
Speaker 2: among the taxpayers that want this thing repealed. They they
Speaker 2: they had a certain amount of thousands of signatures that
Speaker 2: they needed, and they went several thousand beyond that, and
Speaker 2: so there's this massive upwelling of support for for repealing this, uh,
Speaker 2: this law that allows Nebraska to funnel money into private
Speaker 2: religious organizations. But it's just really underhanded the way this
Speaker 2: Secretary of State is approaching this. He's he's literally trying
Speaker 2: to shut the public up when his job is the
Speaker 2: exact opposite of that.
Speaker 1: Sorry, Cynthia, You're you're You're totally fine, because that was
Speaker 1: actually where I was heading to, is about the referrera.
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah, we're we're here.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 4: The first question on the Nebraska.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, Glenn added all of this anyway, Oh yes,
Speaker 5: but yeah, but I I but I did want.
Speaker 1: To talk a little bit more about the referendum because, like,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm thinking that that in my head if
Speaker 1: we're like trying to do like a correlation between both
Speaker 1: of these stories. You have one area where you know,
Speaker 1: they don't want to they don't want to let in
Speaker 1: certain students or they want to feel free to discriminate
Speaker 1: against students, against faculty and still get you know, government funding.
Speaker 1: But going on to Nebraska, we have like the whole
Speaker 1: portion of the public being able to weigh in on
Speaker 1: if they want to repeal the program, the private school funding,
Speaker 1: and you actually seem to have support from the public
Speaker 1: to say that, yes, this is something that we want
Speaker 1: to do. But the Secretary of State is like nauhh,
Speaker 1: you know, because that is the best argument ever to
Speaker 1: have in life, as we all know. But I'm wondering,
Speaker 1: and I think that you possibly touched on this a bit, Scott,
Speaker 1: but AJ if you can kind of just like you know,
Speaker 1: running with your your thoughts about it's like, how can
Speaker 1: shifts in state legislation like those scene in Nebraska impact
Speaker 1: the accessibility and funding of public education compared to private education.
Speaker 6: That it is a good question, right and.
Speaker 1: Scott, if you want to jump in on that question,
Speaker 1: and then AJ you can first reply to your thoughts,
Speaker 1: please do so.
Speaker 3: Could you give me a quick repeat?
Speaker 1: I certainly can. I really can. Watch out here, here's
Speaker 1: a repeat, Glenn edit. How can how can shifts in
Speaker 1: state legislation like those scene in Nebraska impact the accessibility
Speaker 1: and funding of public education compared to private education?
Speaker 6: Sure?
Speaker 2: And and and if by that if you mean shifts
Speaker 2: towards supporting voucher programs, then I mean I've talked about
Speaker 2: voucher programs so many times on the nonprofits. It's just
Speaker 2: it's it's like a permanent record going on in my
Speaker 2: mind right now. And the voucher programs undermine public education
Speaker 2: significantly in many different ways. But as you're talking about,
Speaker 2: it makes it difficult for those schools to uh, to
Speaker 2: get some of the funding, I mean, to support their programs,
Speaker 2: and so the programs suffer, and so then they give
Speaker 2: the impression that the public schools are not doing as well.
Speaker 2: Why are they not doing as well? Maybe they're not
Speaker 2: as good, you know, And and so let's give them
Speaker 2: even less money, and so it can it can start
Speaker 2: kind of this snowball effect, which I don't know. I
Speaker 2: don't know this for sure, but I have a strong
Speaker 2: suspicion that destroying the public education system is part of
Speaker 2: the plan. And it sure seems that way to me,
Speaker 2: at least it sure seems that way. And so so
Speaker 2: when we like in Nebraska, when we see the books
Speaker 2: starting to push to push back, then we can see
Speaker 2: what the lawmaker what they need to resort to.
Speaker 3: They need to give their argument and say, oops, I
Speaker 3: approve that, but I need that back. Can I have
Speaker 3: that back? Can you just give you that back to me?
Speaker 2: And then I'll deny it instead, And you know, it's
Speaker 2: just it's I don't know, it's just not flying. Well,
Speaker 2: in this case, it's not flying because the Nebraska Supreme
Speaker 2: Court supported his initial assessment of the program. But yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean, it's just voucher programs already target that money
Speaker 2: that's needed by the public education system, and this just
Speaker 2: exacerbates that whole thing.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think god Scott just said, it's actually very true.
Speaker 4: It is part of the plan, because it is part
Speaker 4: of what the conservative said is trying to do, specifically
Speaker 4: with Project twenty twenty five, they are actually trying to
Speaker 4: not just not just use the voucher programs, but actually
Speaker 4: completely under my and then Department of Education. And this
Speaker 4: coast shows that they are trying to make it to
Speaker 4: less people are going to go into public schools and
Speaker 4: more people are going to go into all these private schools,
Speaker 4: which believe about seventy five percent are religious.
Speaker 1: Right, it's not even like undermined the Department of Education.
Speaker 1: They want to completely get rid of it. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: completely get rid of it and just basically just have
Speaker 1: the control of how education looks be determined by the state.
Speaker 1: But the scary part about any of this, like when
Speaker 1: we're looking at whether if we look at Maine, if
Speaker 1: we look at Nebraska, or if we even look at
Speaker 1: like you know, other states that we have covered on
Speaker 1: the nonprofits previously, is that we already know that school
Speaker 1: voucher programs are not equitable. They are going to and
Speaker 1: school choice is not real choice choice. Yeah. And also
Speaker 1: the main people that are going to suffer under particular
Speaker 1: programs like this, especially when you diverse money away from
Speaker 1: the public education system on marginalized groups and yeah, and
Speaker 1: so and especially like if you are able to have
Speaker 1: funding on the public level, go to a private school
Speaker 1: that is allowed to discriminate. What type of education do
Speaker 1: you believe will be accessible to those who happen to
Speaker 1: be in a marginalized community if they want to roll
Speaker 1: back protections for LGBTQ people, or even if we say, hey,
Speaker 1: we want to go back to how we used to operating,
Speaker 1: Jim Crow. You know, and as we talked about even
Speaker 1: in earlier segments, how a young person at the time
Speaker 1: was exposed to racist rhetoric and it was backed up
Speaker 1: by the Bible, and that is what that particular church
Speaker 1: used in order for them to say that you being
Speaker 1: who you are because you are you're black or what
Speaker 1: have you, that you are automatically inferior so and God
Speaker 1: and God made you that way. So that means that
Speaker 1: you have to have a subservient attitude and you also
Speaker 1: have to have a subpar living condition, subpar education, subpart everything,
Speaker 1: because that is the position that you're supposed to be.
Speaker 1: But you know, I'm curious to know, and both of
Speaker 1: you are, please weigh in on this. A j I
Speaker 1: want you to start, and then Scott, I'll have you
Speaker 1: round up what strategies my public school advocates employ to
Speaker 1: effectively counteract the financial resources of school choice proponents in
Speaker 1: upcoming elections.
Speaker 4: I think you know, I've got to really plays a
Speaker 4: key role in counteracting bad legislation, whether it has already
Speaker 4: been enacted or if it's something that is observing. I'm
Speaker 4: gonna have just thought of it. Did you hear anything?
Speaker 5: Yeah, is going to have the greatest time.
Speaker 3: Tonight.
Speaker 4: I must not from our start from the top to
Speaker 4: make it easier on them. Okay, So advocacy plays a
Speaker 4: key le in counteracting bad legislation, whether it has already
Speaker 4: been enacted or it's been voted on. And this isn't
Speaker 4: the first time that Republicans have tried to use public
Speaker 4: money to found private school tuition. Last year, Republicans in
Speaker 4: the Nebraska argislature actually passed a bill to allow corporations
Speaker 4: and individuals to divert millions of dollars that they owe
Speaker 4: in state income taxes to nonprofit organizations. Right then these
Speaker 4: non profits will give that money as a gifted scholarship
Speaker 4: to private schools. But we have to consider that nearly
Speaker 4: eighty percent of private schools in the US are religious.
Speaker 4: So public school advocates with their organization called Support Our
Speaker 4: Schools successfully gathered signators to repeal on that allow. However,
Speaker 4: Support of the Private school fundingbal just replaced the build
Speaker 4: with another one this year, and that dumped the tax
Speaker 4: credit funded funding system. And it's simply just awards private
Speaker 4: schools scholarships directly from state funds. That's a big problem here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I would echo that too. I think you
Speaker 2: know what Ago is talking about, advocacy. I think that's
Speaker 2: really the main weapon that we have to support public schools.
Speaker 2: It's because we're in an age of information, but we're
Speaker 2: also in an age of misinformation, and so I think
Speaker 2: I'm a strong believer that knowledge is power, and so
Speaker 2: knowing about the situation not only helps you to recognize
Speaker 2: that it's happening, which you know, many people, depending on
Speaker 2: your news source, depending on what part of the country
Speaker 2: you live in, depending on you know, are you part
Speaker 2: of your parents household, and you know, have to go
Speaker 2: along with what they say. You know, there's a variety
Speaker 2: of reasons or variety of things that are going to
Speaker 2: affect your opinion and position in your knowledge of this situation.
Speaker 2: But if you can get information that's reasonable, if you can,
Speaker 2: then you can use that information to form to do
Speaker 2: crazy thought here, do your own thinking. But then but
Speaker 2: knowledge also helps you know things like what can I do?
Speaker 3: Does my vote affect this?
Speaker 1: How?
Speaker 3: How should I vote?
Speaker 2: Sometimes they phrase like those referenda on on ballots. Sometimes
Speaker 2: they phrase them kind of in tricky ways to try to,
Speaker 2: you know, manipulate how people will vote on those kind
Speaker 2: of things. And so, but knowing what's being discussed here,
Speaker 2: knowing what's being voted on, knowing that you can, you know,
Speaker 2: call your senator or call yours superintendent, or call your
Speaker 2: principle or whatever. You know, knowing that you have those
Speaker 2: options can make a big deal. And so I think knowledge,
Speaker 2: you know, I'll just repeat it. Knowledge is power, And
Speaker 2: I think that's that's definitely true in situations like this,
Speaker 2: especially when the popul the population might otherwise be helpless.
Speaker 2: Right if if the if the, if Bob Envin had
Speaker 2: been allowed to do this, if he had been allowed
Speaker 2: to revoke his his approval of that of that repeal,
Speaker 2: allowing the repeal onto the ballot, then you know, then
Speaker 2: he's completely bypassing you know, the people's voice, like I
Speaker 2: was saying before.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I think knowledge definitely is the key there.
Speaker 4: Speaking of the upcoming elections, I think people often don't
Speaker 4: realize that it's not just the presidential election that during
Speaker 4: the voting, you're going to be voting on so many
Speaker 4: local offices and representatives, and you're going to be voting
Speaker 4: on local, uh, you know, options and things that are
Speaker 4: going to affect your smaller scale community, even including your schools.
Speaker 1: Yeah, policy measures rather they are people or actual like
Speaker 1: you know, things about what are you going to do
Speaker 1: or support is on ballots too, So it definitely helps
Speaker 1: to pay attention to what's happening in your state, and
Speaker 1: especially on some of the things that are going to
Speaker 1: be put forward, so you know how to work that, okay, yes,
Speaker 1: and how to work that well. The recent legal battles
Speaker 1: in Maine and Nebraska illustrate the ongoing tension between school
Speaker 1: choice initiatives and anti discrimination laws. And Maine, the Crosspoint
Speaker 1: Church appeal challenges state requirements that religious schools adhere to
Speaker 1: the main Human Rights Act, which aims to protect LGBTQ rights.
Speaker 1: The church argues that the anti discrimination law undermines the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court's ruling favoring religious schools participation in state tuition program. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: In Nebraska, a court ruling allows the repeal measure of
Speaker 1: a private school funding law to appear on the ballot,
Speaker 1: highlighting public opposition to diverting tax payer money to private institutions.
Speaker 1: Advocates argue that public schools are vital to community cohesion
Speaker 1: and should not be sidelined by private school funding initiatives.
Speaker 1: These cases underscore the complexities of balancing religious freedoms, anti
Speaker 1: discrimination efforts, and educational equity in the current political landscape.