Ayotte says two priority bills she signed back parental rights
Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed into law two of her signature priority bills Tuesday, a parental rights law to give them access to information about their children in schools and one allowing parents of any income level to receive a taxpayer-paid Education Freedom Account (EFA).
Surrounded by legislators, education choice advocates and school children, Ayotte said the two bills put the state on the right course for education reform that emphasizes choice and promotes families.
'Giving parents the freedom to choose the education setting that best fits their child's needs will help every student in our state reach their full potential,' Ayotte said.
'I'm proud to sign this into law today along with the Parental Bill of Rights, which ensures parents are the central voice in their children's education. I thank the House and Senate for working to get these across the finish line.'
But critics maintain that both bills harm the public school system.
They contend the parental rights measures (HB 10 and SB 72) could make it harder for educators to report cases of suspected child abuse to authorities.
They opposed the EFA legislation (SB 295) since this expansion is estimated to add another $17 million a year to a program that was already costing taxpayers $30 million annually.
'All students deserve a high-quality education and the support they need to thrive. Unfortunately, expanding the unaccountable voucher scheme will exacerbate the already inequitable public education funding system in New Hampshire,' said Megan Tuttle, president of the National Education Association of New Hampshire.
'Limitless vouchers will take millions of dollars out of public schools to subsidize private school education for a few at the expense of nearly 90% of students who attend community public schools.'
Outgoing Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut had been one of the leading advocates for EFAs, which were created in a 2021 state budget trailer bill that then-Gov. Chris Sununu signed into law.
"New Hampshire's Education Freedom Account program has already transformed lives by giving families access to the educational pathways that best fit their children's needs,' Edelblut said.
'Expanding this opportunity through universal eligibility is a bold and forward-thinking move that reimagines what education can be, providing every student with the opportunity to reach their full potential and experience a bright future. We are proud to support this expansion and eager to see the lasting impact it will have on student success across our state.'
Limiting EFA expansion was proposed
The EFA law went far beyond what Ayotte had asked for from legislators four months ago.
Currently, EFAs are limited to families making up to 350% of the federal poverty level or just over $100,000 a year for a family of four.
The bill would eliminate that income eligibility limit while initially setting a cap on 10,000 EFAs given statewide.
Currently, there are about 5,600 families that receive EFAs, averging about $5,100 a year.
Ayotte had only wanted the expansion of EFAs to apply to families that have their children in public schools.
According to surveys, more than 75% of those who have received EFAs already had their children enrolled in private schools.
'New Hampshire parents are grateful and relieved that more doors are finally open,' said Kate Baker Demers, executive director of the Children's Scholarship Fund, the nonprofit group that administers the EFA program for the state. 'They've known what their children needed — and now, thanks to this law, more families can access the freedom to choose what works best. This isn't about politics. It's about possibility.'
Several leaders of education choice groups praised Ayotte's move on the EFA.
"Gov. Ayotte knows that every young Granite Stater has unique needs to fulfil their education. Today, she ensured that every family is empowered with resources to find what works best for them,' said Nick Murray, public affairs manager for yes. every kid. 'We look forward to working with her administration to ensure New Hampshire's EFA program continues to serve families' needs in the best ways possible.'
EdChoice President Robert Enlow said New Hampshire becomes the 19th state to offer these vouchers to all students.
'What New Hampshire has done isn't just expand eligibility — it's set a new benchmark for what educational freedom should look like,' Enlow continued. 'We're proud to support the Granite State in realizing the vision Milton Friedman outlined nearly 70 years ago — one in which every family has the freedom to choose, and every child has the opportunity to thrive.'
State Sen. Victoria Sullivan, R-Manchester, sponsored the EFA bill that became law.
House Democratic Leader Alexis Simpson said a byproduct of the parental rights bill will be to target transgender students who will no longer be able to confide in 'one trusted adult' at school about their views about gender identity that their parents don't know about.
"Today, Gov. Kelly Ayotte and State House Republicans turned our classrooms into political battlegrounds. They've passed a bill that forces teachers to out LGBTQ+ teens to potentially abusive parents and makes it harder for educators and DCYF to protect vulnerable kids who need help the most. They've made teachers' jobs a nightmare and put children at risk, all in the name of a hateful culture war. Nobody asked for this.'
House Speaker Sherman Packard, R-Londonderry, was the prime author of the parental rights bill.
'By advancing education freedom and the Parental Bill of Rights, we've reaffirmed a simple truth: parents, not bureaucracies, should make decisions about their children's lives. This legislation gives families real choices and ensures their values are respected,' Packard added.
klandrigan@unionleader.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Abbott vetoes Texas THC ban
Gov. Greg Abbott on Sunday night vetoed the THC ban bill pushed by his fellow Republicans in the Texas Legislature. Why it matters: The move secures the future of the state's multibillion-dollar hemp industry and keeps those who rely on legal THC products with more options — for now. It also articulates a divide among Texas conservatives in how they view cannabis and how to address its rising popularity. Between the lines: Abbott waited to act less than an hour before the midnight deadline to veto bills. Driving the news: Senate Bill 3 sought to ban the possession, sale and manufacture of all THC products — including consumable delta-8 THC which Texas lawmakers legalized in 2019. Context: Delta-8 THC is a minor chemical variant of the main psychoactive ingredient in traditional cannabis and provides lesser psychoactive effects. It can be coupled with CBD, another hemp-derived compound used for pain relief and mental wellness. In 2019, Abbott signed the Texas farm bill, which partly legalized products containing small amounts of hemp-derived delta-8 THC, including edibles, beverages, vapes and traditional bud. Catch up quick: Last year, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick vowed that Texas would once again criminalize all forms of THC after claiming products were being sold with "unlimited THC" and marketed to children with "life-threatening" consequences. The Senate passed SB 3 26-5 in March, and the House followed suit with an 87-54 vote in May. Flashback: Thousands of veterans, business owners and THC proponents sent Abbott letters urging him to veto the bill. The big picture: The move comes as Abbott this weekend expanded the state's medical marijuana program, opening it up for people with chronic pain, traumatic brain injury, Crohn's disease and in palliative care, and as more states have loosened cannabis restrictions in recent years.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Senate Republicans cannot force US Postal Service to scrap EVs, parliamentarian says
By David Shepardson WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Republicans cannot force the U.S. Postal Service to scrap thousands of electric vehicles and charging equipment in a massive tax and budget bill, the Senate parliamentarian said late on Sunday. The U.S. Postal Service currently has 7,200 electric vehicles, made up of Ford e-Transit vehicles and specially built Next Generation Delivery Vehicles built by Oshkosh Defense. USPS warned on June 13 that scrapping the electric vehicles would cost it $1.5 billion, including $1 billion to replace its current fleet of EVs and $500 million in EV infrastructure rendered useless and "seriously cripple our ability to replace an aging and obsolete delivery fleet." Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, whose role is to ensure lawmakers follow proper legislative procedure, said a provision to force the sale could not be approved via a simple majority vote in the Republican-controlled chamber and will instead need a 60-vote supermajority, according to Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee. She ruled last week that Republicans cannot use the bill to overturn landmark rules to drastically reduce vehicle emissions and boost EV sales. Senate Republicans have also sought to reclaim more than $1 billion out of $3 billion Congress gave USPS in 2023 as part of a $430 billion climate bill to buy EVs and charging infrastructure - including $1.2 billion for electric vehicles. USPS told Congress "summarily removing all electric vehicles and charging infrastructure would hobble our ability to deliver to the American people, it would directly harm our ability to serve your constituents, and it would waste crucial funds for no reasonable purpose." Replacing the current 7,200 electric vehicles would directly cost the Postal Service at least $450 million and USPS has also spent $540 million on electrical infrastructure upgrades "which is literally buried under parking lots, and there is no market for used charging equipment," the company added. USPS would also face significant costs from Oshkosh for halting EV purchases under its contract. USPS said in December that purchases in 2025 would be around "50-50" EVs and gas-powered. USPS plans to buy some 66,000 electric vehicles by 2028. Senate Republicans argued scrapping EVs would "focus USPS on delivering mail and not achieving the environmental aims pushed by the Biden administration." In March, the White House forced out Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, who led efforts to restructure the money-losing U.S. Postal Service for nearly five years. USPS has lost more than $100 billion since 2007. David Steiner, a FedEx board member and former CEO of Waste Management, has been named as incoming postmaster general. President Donald Trump said in February he was considering merging the Postal Service with the Commerce Department, a move Democrats said would violate federal law. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Democrats, and some Republicans, question Trump's unilateral attack
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'The foreign minister of Israel said Friday night that its own bombing campaign had set the Iranian nuclear program back 'at least two or three years,'' Kaine noted on 'Face the Nation' on Sunday. 'There was no urgency that suggested, while diplomatic talks were underway, that the U.S. should take this unilateral action by President Trump's orders yesterday.' Advertisement He disagreed with the assertions of Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who stressed on Sunday shows that the U.S. is not at war with Iran. 'Would we think it was war if Iran bombed a U.S. nuclear facility? Of course we would,' Kaine said. Advertisement A few Republicans are also breaking with the president on the issue. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), who this month introduced a resolution alongside Rep. Ro Khanna (D-California) to require congressional approval before any strike, said Sunday that there had been 'no imminent threat' to the U.S. to justify Trump's unilateral actions against Iran. The U.S. House, Massie noted, was on recess last week. If the situation in Iran was as urgent as the Trump administration has made it seem, the White House should have called lawmakers back to Washington. 'Frankly, we should've debated this,' Massie told CBS's 'Face the Nation.' 'Instead of staying on vacation and doing fundraisers and saying, 'Oh, well, the president's got this under control, we're going to cede our constitutional authority.'' Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) on Saturday also questioned the legality of Trump's attacks, saying on social media, 'it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' As news of the strikes broke Saturday, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), who has also opposed U.S. intervention in Iran, posted on X that 'this is not our fight.' Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) called on the Senate to enforce the War Powers Act - the measure that would reaffirm Congress's right to declare war. Schumer urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) to bring the act to a vote on the floor 'immediately.' Schumer said Saturday that confronting Iran's 'ruthless campaign of terror' requires 'strategic clarity.' Trump, he said, must be held accountable by Congress. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' he said. Advertisement But Trump's defenders pointed to other authority in the Constitution, with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) pointing to Article II, which allows the president some war powers. 'You can't have 535 commander in chiefs,' Graham said, referring to the number of lawmakers in the House and Senate. 'If you don't like what the president does in terms of war, you can cut off the funding.' Graham, in an interview on NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday, argued that while Congress has declared war only a handful of times in U.S. history, and has not since World War II, other presidents have launched military operations without congressional authorization. In 2011, for example, President Barack Obama ordered a military intervention in Libya without lawmakers' approval. In other instances, Congress has given the president the power to order limited military attacks by passing an Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AMUF. Some point out that the 2002 authorization, which gave the president the authority to use armed forces against 'the continuing threat posed by Iraq,' is still active, despite efforts by some lawmakers in recent years to rescind the authority. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Sunday that congressional leaders were informed of the attack soon after the U.S. planes left Iranian airspace. Various lawmakers also argued that Trump should not have bombarded Iranian nuclear facilities because U.S. intelligence did not show that the country was at risk of an Iranian attack. 'You don't want to take an action like this without a strong basis - that is, that Iran was imminently pursuing a bomb, and we simply don't have the intelligence or, if we do, it hasn't been shared with the Congress,' Sen. Adam Schiff (D-California) said Sunday on CNN's 'State of the Union.' Advertisement The top two Republicans in Congress - House Speaker Mike Johnson (Louisiana) and Thune - were quick to praise what they said was Trump's decisiveness even though the president made the decision to attack Iran without Congress's input. Both Thune and Johnson were briefed ahead of the strike, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive military operation. Johnson said Trump's attack should serve as a 'clear reminder to our adversaries and allies' that Trump 'means what he says.' 'President Trump has been consistent and clear that a nuclear-armed Iran will not be tolerated. That posture has now been enforced with strength, precision and clarity,' Johnson said. Other lawmakers warned about the strikes snowballing into a prolonged conflict, as Iran has asserted that it reserved 'all options' to act in self-defense. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Arizona), who served in the Marines, warned the nation should not be 'dragged into another endless war in the Middle East.' 'I would know. I saw close friends die next to me serving as a Marine in a high-combat unit in Iraq,' he said in a statement. 'Each of these deaths was needless.' A few House Democrats called for Trump's impeachment over the strikes. 'He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations,' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) wrote on X. 'It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.' But Schiff - who served as impeachment manager during Trump's first impeachment trial - told CNN that congressional Republicans have made it clear that they have a 'high bar' for impeachment processes against Trump. Advertisement 'The better remedy, frankly, is - if Republicans will show any backbone whatsoever - to pass a war powers resolution to prevent any further military action,' he said. At least one Senate Democrat, however, openly applauded Trump's actions on Saturday night. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by [Trump],' Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pennsylvania) said. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.' Marianna Sotomayor, Amy B Wang and Niha Masih contributed to this report.
