Welcome to the Thursday, Sept. 4, 2025, Brew.
By: Lara Bonatesta
Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:
- We spoke to school board members nationwide about their roles—here’s what they told us
- Trump has nominated the fewest Article III judges at this point in any presidential term since 2001
- Proponents file recreational marijuana initiative in Nebraska for 2026 ballot—the fifth initiative attempt since 2018
We spoke to school board members nationwide about their roles—here’s what they told us
A version of this story appeared in Ballotpedia’s Hall Pass newsletter on September 3. Click here to sign up.
In 2024 and 2025, Ballotpedia staff spoke with 100 school board members in 33 states about their motivations for running for elected office and their experiences managing their districts.
The goal of these wide-ranging, hour-long conversations was to learn more about the people who occupy these positions of community trust to ensure our coverage of their elections serves their communities. Our conversations included school board members from small and large districts, and those in rural and urban areas.
The resulting 43-page report details board member perspectives on conflict resolution, academic oversight, community engagement, and governance effectiveness. It includes statistical analysis, thematic findings, and direct quotes from interviews.
You can read the full report here. We’ve highlighted and summarized a few noteworthy findings and observations below.
School boards and their conflict styles
Conflict is an inevitable component of any governing body, and school boards are no exception. We asked interviewees five questions about conflict on school boards, including: “Do school board coalitions tend to form along predictable lines (e.g. political party, gender, profession)?”
- This question revealed a near-even split. Forty-one percent said coalitions do tend to form predictably, typically along political lines or shared professional backgrounds. Another 42% emphasizing issue-based alliances or fluid dynamics. The remaining 17% gave nuanced answers: coalitions might form in certain seasons (e.g. during elections or crises) but not persist.
- Patterns of alignment: Many boards were described as splitting along left-right ideological lines, especially in swing or urban areas. But politics wasn’t the only axis of agreement and disagreement. Interviewees said board members often aligned with those with similar professional backgrounds, such as teaching. Some respondents also said coalitions were more about trust, respect, and communication style than demographics.
- What they said: One respondent said, “We definitely have a progressive block and a conservative block. It’s subtle, but it shapes everything from how we vote to how we talk,” while another said, “I wouldn’t say it’s party-based. It’s more like… who’s loud and who’s quiet. It’s about personalities.”
Respondents were also asked to rank their agreement with the following statement: “Conflict usually results in a clear solution to the problem.”
- Roughly 62% of board members believe conflict usually leads to productive outcomes (ratings 4 or 5). Ten percent said conflicts rarely result in resolution, while 28% were neutral.
- Board members said skilled superintendents or chairs and defined board norms and bylaws help resolve conflict, while agenda-driven members, social media drama, and lack of trust prolong or deepen it.
- What they said: “We argue, but we always vote and move on. That’s the job,” said one member. Another said, “Sometimes the ‘resolution’ is just that the minority gets steamrolled.”
School boards and academic outcomes
We asked interviewees to define the role that an individual board member should play in relation to academic outcomes. Their responses illuminated important variation in how board members balance oversight, accountability, and community engagement.
Board members said they saw themselves as information seekers, accountability partners, and communication bridges—but not instructional experts. While a few viewed themselves as advocates who must challenge the status quo, most emphasized that their role was to work with fellow board members, not act alone.
- Ask questions and stay informed: This was the most common theme, with board members describing a role focused on inquiry, monitoring, and understanding, without stepping into administrative decision-making.
- Serve as a community liaison or ambassador: Many respondents view their individual responsibility as bridging communication between the district and the public. These members help explain decisions, gather community input, and promote trust in the system.
- Support without micromanaging: These respondents emphasized the importance of deferring to experts, trusting school leadership, and not stepping beyond policy-level discussions.
Respondents also said their role was to hold administrators accountable for student achievement. A minority of respondents said individual members should not be involved in academic issues, citing the risk of overreach or inappropriate pressure on staff.
The three flavors of school boards
Based on these insights, school boards across the country can be largely categorized into three distinct types, reflecting differences in governance, board member dynamics, and board members’ priorities.
- Collaborative leadership boards: These boards function with high trust, shared vision, and well-defined roles. Members respect each other’s perspectives and collaborate productively with the superintendent. There is often a strong sense of purpose centered on improving student outcomes, with an emphasis on strategy rather than micromanagement.
- Coalition-driven conflict boards: These boards experience chronic division, often along political, racial, or ideological lines. Coalitions are rigid, and votes consistently fall along predictable lines. Members report feelings of exclusion, mistrust, and personal animosity. Conflicts linger without true resolution, and decisions often feel predetermined.
- Hands-off oversight boards: Boards in this category adopt a highly deferential stance toward the superintendent and district staff. While not overtly divided or dysfunctional, they remain largely uninvolved in the daily workings or academic oversight of the district. They often express a 10,000-foot view philosophy, focusing only on broad policy decisions.
Explore the report to learn more about how school board members see themselves and their roles.
There’s much more in the full report, which you can read here. We discussed what school board members hoped to achieve during their terms, the relationship between board members and district superintendents, and what board members wished voters and the media understood about them.
Trump has nominated the fewest Article III judges at this point in any presidential term since 2001
President Donald Trump (R) did not nominate, nor did the Senate confirm, any Article III federal judges in August 2025. Through the end of August, Trump has nominated 15 Article III judges in his second term, and the U.S. Senate has confirmed five.
This is the second-fewest confirmed nominees through the end of August in a presidential term since George W. Bush (R) was sworn in in 2001. The only president with fewer confirmations at this point was Bush, during his first term.
At this point in each presidency, the Senate had confirmed the following number of Article III judges:
- Joe Biden (D): 32
- Trump (first term): 24
- Barack Obama (D) (second term): 18
- Obama (first term): 16
- Bush (second term):19
- Bush (first term): 4
The following chart shows the number of Article III judicial nominations over time during the Biden, Trump, Obama, and G.W. Bush administrations (2001-present).
Trump’s 15 nominations are the fewest at this point in any presidential term since 2001. Through August in the first year of each presidential term, each president had nominated:
- Biden: 33
- Trump (first term): 36
- Obama (second term): 43
- Obama (first term): 19
- Bush (second term): 26
- Bush (first term): 44
There were 49 vacancies in the federal judiciary at the end of the month, including 48 for Article III judgeships. Since 2011, the record for the most Article III vacancies was during Trump’s first term in July 2018, when there were 145. The record for the fewest Article III vacancies was at the end of Biden’s presidency in December 2024. There were 138 vacancies at the start of September 2017, the first year of Trump’s first term, and 81 vacancies at the start of September 2021, the first year of Biden’s presidency.
Click here to learn more about current federal judicial vacancies and here to learn more about Trump’s federal judicial nominations.
Ballotpedia provides in-depth coverage of federal courts in our Robe & Gavel newsletter. Click here to sign up.
Proponents file recreational marijuana initiative in Nebraska for 2026 ballot—the fifth initiative attempt since 2018
In Nebraska, a proposed constitutional amendment that would establish a “right to use all plants in the genus Cannabis” for individuals 21 years of age or older was filed on Aug. 18. This is the fifth initiative filed to legalize recreational marijuana since 2018. Bill Hawkins of the Nebraska Hemp Company has filed all five ballot initiatives. None have met the required number of signatures to qualify for the ballot.
In Nebraska, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 10% of registered voters at the signature deadline—July 3, 2026, for that year’s ballot. As a result, petition sponsors cannot know the exact number of signatures needed until the submission deadline. In 2024, the required number was 123,465 signatures according to the July 1, 2024, voter registration totals.
Nebraska also has a distribution requirement that requires initiative proponents to collect signatures from 5% of the registered voters in two-fifths (38) of Nebraska’s 93 counties.
Nebraska voters legalized medical marijuana in 2024 when they approved two ballot initiatives—one legalizing its use and the other providing regulations. The former received 71.1% of the vote, the latter 67.3%.
Forty states and Washington, D.C. allow medical use of cannabis. Twenty-four states and D.C. have legalized it for recreational use. In 13 states and D.C., voters legalized marijuana via ballot initiatives.
In 2024, voters defeated initiatives to legalize recreational marijuana in Florida, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Florida Amendment 3, which was the first time marijuana legalization went before voters, was one of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns in 2024, and one of the most expensive marijuana-related ballot measure elections on record. Supporters raised more than $153 million. Opponents raised more than $33 million. Voters in North Dakota and South Dakota each decided on legalization initiatives for the third time, following previous defeats and a court-overturned initiative in South Dakota.
Click here to learn more about the other proposed 2026 ballot measures in Nebraska.