Welcome to the Monday, Feb. 10, 2025, Brew.
By: Lara Bonatesta
Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:
- Washington Parent’s Bill of Rights takes full effect as lawmakers consider changes during 2025 session 0
- Nevada initiative to exempt teachers from strike ban moves to Legislature
- Here’s a roundup of state supreme court vacancy activity from January
Washington Parent’s Bill of Rights takes full effect as lawmakers consider changes during 2025 session
Twenty-four states have passed legislation establishing what supporters call “Parent’s Bills of Rights.” These laws—which outline parental rights regarding their children’s education and upbringing—have mostly passed under Republican trifectas. But Washington recently became the second state to pass one under a Democratic trifecta. After parts of it were blocked for months due to a lawsuit, it is taking full effect, and Democrats and Republicans are divided on legislation that would change it.
On Jan. 27, King County Superior Court Judge Michael Scott in Washington dismissed a lawsuit against Initiative 2081, allowing the state’s Parents’ Bill of Rights to take full effect.
The term “Parents’ Bills of Rights” refers to laws that explicitly afford parents rights regarding their involvement in their children’s education. In some states, Parents’ Bills of Rights are education-specific. Other Parents’ Bills of Rights are more general, commonly allowing parents to direct their children’s upbringing. Even if there is no statewide statute regarding parents’ rights, local school districts have passed parents’ rights policies in their jurisdictions.
As Initiative 2081 was an indirect initiative, the Legislature had the opportunity to approve the measure outright. It did so on March 4, with a unanimous vote in the Senate and an 82-15 vote in the House.
Fifteen of the 24 states with Parent’s Bills of Rights have done so under Republican trifectas. Washington is one of two states that has passed such a law under a Democratic trifecta, and the state’s Democratic Party opposed the initiative.
After Initiative 2081 – and two others with Republican support– were passed, KUOW Public Radio’s Jeanie Lindsay wrote, “By passing these three initiatives into law, the Legislature has an easier path to adjust them than if they were approved by voters. Initiatives enacted by voters have a two-year supermajority requirement. … While Democrats do currently hold the majority in Olympia, they would still need Republican support to meet a two-thirds, or supermajority, threshold.”
State Sen. Jaime Pedersen (D) said, “I remain strongly convinced that by staying in control of the statute and the language, we’re in the best position to make sure that our values of protecting trans kids are upheld.”
State Rep. Jim Walsh (R) said, “I understand the political logic that the speaker and the Senate leader may have to pass that into law now and get it off the ballot in November. So there’s a certain calculation, get the most popular one off the ballot so that it’s not a factor in voter turnout.”
The measure took effect on Jun. 6, 2024. On Jun. 21, Scott temporarily blocked portions of the law that required school districts to turn student records, including medical and mental health counseling records, over to parents within 10 days of a parent’s written request. Those provisions took effect after Scott’s January ruling.
Initiative 2081 also gives parents the right to:
- Review textbooks, curriculum, and supplemental materials used in their child’s classroom
- Receive prior notification of medical services offered to their child, except in emergencies
- Be informed about any medical services or medications provided to their child with potential financial impact
- Be notified of medical treatment arranged by the school resulting in follow-up care beyond normal hours
- Be notified of criminal actions involving or committed by their child
- Be notified if law enforcement questions their child, except in cases of parental abuse or neglect accusations
- Be notified if their child is taken from school without parental permission
- Be assured that the school will not discriminate against their child based on sincerely held religious beliefs
- Opt-out students from certain surveys, assignments, and instructional topics, including those related to sexuality
- Receive the annual school calendar and be notified of any revisions
- Receive information on required fees, dress code, and academic performance-threatening promotion
Proposed legislative changes
In the 2025 session, Washington lawmakers are considering two bills that would change the parent’s bill of rights.
Democrats have said the purpose of these bills is to address confusing language and ensure the Parent’s Bill of Rights aligns with other existing laws.
Republicans have said the bills are an attempt to undo Initiative 2081. Kristen Bridgen-Brown, vice chair of the Pierce County Republican Party, also said the bills show a “disregard for all of the efforts of the money and time and effort that went into the initiative – and the people’s voice.”
- HB 1296: On Jan. 14, House Democrats introduced HB 1296, which would undo or rewrite provisions from the Parents’ Bill of Rights, including the previously blocked provision regarding parental access to records.
Among other provisions, the bill states, “It is the policy of the state of Washington that policies and procedures adopted by school districts under this title must prioritize the protection of every student’s safety, access to a free public education, and privacy, to the fullest extent possible, except as required by state or federal law.”
In a public hearing on HB 1296, high school senior Albert Johnson said in support of the bill, “I came out to my friends and advisors at school, a year before I came out to my parents. I wanted to take time to explore myself and my identity, an experience every trans person deserves to have.”
State Rep. Travis Couture (R), a member of the Washington House Education Committee, said, “What gives a school or teacher the right to hide anything they want, including critical information about my kids from me, their parent?” - SB 5181: On Feb. 5, the Washington Senate passed SB 5181 30-19, a party-line vote.
State Sen. Claire Wilson (D), the bill’s sponsor, said, “This bill doesn’t change any rights. It’s a cleanup bill that makes updates on protecting the health privacy of students and protecting rights that are given to them already under existing state law.”
State Sen. Perry Dozier (R) said, “This is not a cleanup bill. It’s an overhaul bill. What was in 2081 that parents wanted has totally changed.”
Washington is one of 24 states that have Parents’ Bills of Rights. Last month, Ohio became the 23rd state to adopt a Parents’ Bill of Rights. Click here to see our coverage of the law in our Jan. 23 edition of the Brew.
Ballotpedia has an extensive and growing set of resources on school boards in every state. To learn more about our research on local school board authority, click here.
Nevada initiative to exempt teachers from strike ban moves to Legislature
Nevada voters may decide on an initiative that would exempt public school teachers and certain other education personnel from the state’s prohibition on strikes by state and local government employees. The Clark County Education Association (CCEA) submitted signatures on Nov. 18, and enough valid signatures were found to send the initiative to the Legislature on Dec. 11.
Citizen initiatives are indirect in Nevada. This means that the Legislature will first consider the initiative, and if it rejects or does not act on it, the measure will appear on the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot. The Nevada Legislature went into session on Feb. 3, and it has 40 days from that date to decide on the initiative.
In 1969, Nevada passed a law making strikes illegal for state and local government employees, including public school teachers. According to Education Week, Nevada is one of 37 states that prohibit public-sector strikes.
When the initiative campaign was launched in 2024, CCEA President Marie Neisess said, “We are handcuffed by a law that was passed in 1969 and our educators want the ability to strike and so this is just the next natural step.” Neisess also said that binding arbitration, the state’s current process of handling contract negotiation disputes is not working and that teachers need a faster solution, “Our process began in March and by December over 400 educators had left CCSD. We need a fix. Binding arbitration does not work. We can’t expect educators to stand by for months on end, having the unknown.”
In response to the initiative, then-Clark County Superintendent School District Jesus Jara said, “The law they seek to overturn exists to prevent community chaos and its adverse impacts on our economies and families. We need more transparency, not chaos, in public sector negotiations. Transparent public sector negotiations would benefit our teachers, students, and taxpayers rather than attempts to sow more discord.” Jara resigned from his position in February 2024.
In an interview with KTNV-TV published on Feb. 4, 2025, Gov. Joe Lombardo (R) said he opposed the initiative: “I don’t support it. It’s not a good business model to have firemen and policemen or your first responders, and teachers in my opinion are a necessity, to be able to go on strike for wages and collective bargaining was brought in as part of that solution.”
In Nevada, the number of valid signatures needed to qualify an indirect-initiated state statute for the ballot must equal 10% of the total votes cast in the most recent general election. This means CCEA needed to collect 102,362 signatures to send the initiative to the Legislature. A total of 127,812 valid signatures were submitted.
If the initiative goes to voters, it will join two constitutional amendments on the 2026 ballot. They include Question 6, which would establish a state constitutional right to an abortion, and Question 7, which would require voters to present a photo ID to cast a ballot in person or use the last four digits of their driver’s license or social security number to vote by mail. Voters approved Questions 6 and 7 in 2024, and both amendments need to be approved again in 2026 to take effect. Nevada is the only state that requires constitutional amendments to pass at two successive even-year general elections.
Nevada is one of 18 states that allow citizens to initiate amendments to the constitution and one of 21 states that allow citizens to initiate state statutes. However, unlike the 14 states that allow for direct initiatives for state statutes, Nevada is one of nine states where initiatives are indirect.
Here’s a roundup of state supreme court vacancy activity from January
As we noted in our Jan. 31 edition of the Brew, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are holding regular state supreme court elections this year.
Let’s look at who’s retired, been nominated, appointed, confirmed, and sworn in in the last month. This report includes updates from Dec. 31, 2024, to Jan. 31, 2025.
Retirements
Two justices stepped down before their terms expired.
- Chief Justice Nathan Hecht retired from the Texas Supreme Court on Dec. 31. Hecht was first elected to the court in 1988. In 2013, former Gov. Rick Perry (R) appointed him to serve as the chief justice. Hecht was the longest-serving supreme court justice in Texas history, serving over 35 years.
- Chief Justice Peter J. Maassen retired from the Alaska Supreme Court on Jan. 13. Former Gov. Sean Parnell (R) appointed Maassen to the court in 2012. Voters retained Maassen in 2016 to a term ending in 2026. Before his term ended, Maassen turned 70 years old—the mandatory retirement age in Alaska and 15 other states.
Candidates nominated, appointed, and confirmed
Five justices were appointed or nominated to their state’s highest court.
- On. Jan. 2, Gov. Jim Pillen (R) appointed Jason Bergevin to the Nebraska Supreme Court. Bergevin was appointed to fill the vacancy that occurred when Jeffrey Funke was appointed chief justice. Bergevin had served as a Nebraska district court judge since 2022.
- On Jan. 6, Gov. Greg Abbott (R) appointed Jimmy Blacklock chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court. Abbott first appointed Blacklock to the Texas Supreme Court in 2018. Abbott also appointed James Sullivan to succeed Blacklock as an associate justice. Before his appointment, Sullivan served as the general counsel for the Office of the Texas Governor, a position Blacklock also held before his appointment in 2018.
- In Connecticut, Gov. Ned Lamont (D) nominated William H. Bright Jr. to the Connecticut Supreme Court. Bright will succeed Raheem L. Mullins, who became chief justice in late 2024. Both houses of the Connecticut General Assembly must confirm Bright before he takes office. As of Jan. 31, neither chamber had confirmed the nomination. Former Gov. Dan Malloy (D) appointed Bright to the Connecticut Appellate Court in 2017, and Bright has served on that court ever since.
- Governor Katie Hobbs (D) appointed Maria Elena Cruz to the Arizona Supreme Court. This was the first time a Democratic governor has appointed a justice to the state’s highest court in more than 15 years. Former Gov. Doug Ducey (R) appointed Cruz to the Arizona Court of Appeals in 2017. Cruz will be the first Latina and Black justice to serve on the state’s highest court. Cruz will take office in February 2025.
Justices sworn in
Three new justices took office, and four were sworn into new positions on their respective courts.
- In Arkansas, four justices were sworn in on Jan. 1. Two justices were already serving as associate justices but ran for different seats in November. Justice Karen R. Baker held associate justice Position 6 from 2011 until 2025. Baker was elected chief justice. Justice Courtney Rae Hudson held Position 3 on the court from 2011 until 2025. She won a special election for Position 2. Following Baker and Hudson’s wins in November, Positions 3 and 6 were declared vacant, giving Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) her second and third opportunities to appoint justices to the court. In December, Sanders appointed Cody Hiland to Position 3 and Nicholas Bronni to Position 6. Hiland represented Position 2 since his initial appointment in 2023 but was ineligible to run for re-election in the special election. Bronni joined the court for the first time, previously serving as the Arkansas Solicitor General.
- As noted above, two justices were sworn in in Texas on Jan. 6, including James Sullivan. With Sullivan’s swearing-in, Gov. Greg Abbott (R) has appointed six of the nine justices on the Texas Supreme Court.
- In Alaska, Aimee Oravec was sworn into the Alaska Supreme Court on Jan. 31. Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R) appointed Oravec on Nov. 27 to replace Chief Justice Peter J. Maassen. Since the court selects a chief justice from among its incumbent members, Oravec was appointed to an associate justice position. In November, the court elected Susan Carney to be chief justice. Following Oravec’s swearing-in, the state’s highest court has a majority of women justices for the first time.
Other news
Joseph Deters (R) was sworn into his new seat on the Ohio Supreme Court. Gov. Mike DeWine (R) appointed Deters in December 2022 to replace Sharon L. Kennedy (R), who was elected chief justice in November 2022. Deters was appointed to an unexpired term that ended on Dec. 31, 2024. Instead of running for re-election, Deters ran against incumbent Justice Melody Stewart (D), whose seat was also up for election in November 2024. Deters resigned from his previous seat on Dec. 10, 2024, and took his new seat on Jan. 2. The Ohio Supreme Court now has six Republicans and one Democratic justice. Before the November 2024 election, four of the justices were registered Republicans, and three were registered Democrats.
Ballotpedia covers court vacancies in all 52 state supreme courts.