A local school board official worries that local elections could become more partisan, and lawmakers disagree over residency requirements to run.

School board elections could be more partisan

School board elections in Florida have been non-partisan since 2000. But in recent years, political viewpoints have become more prevalent in board meetings.

In some cases, those meetings have been the front line of Florida’s culture war.

Carol Cook has collected many honors in the 24 years she had been on the Pinellas County School Board

She recently announced her retirement from the board when her term comes to a close in November.

Cook spent years in the education system as a teacher, on the PTA board of directors, representing the county at the Florida School Board Association, and many other roles.

She’s proud of her work, but said school boards are facing challenges.

“In the past, we would go to the Legislature and say, 'Here are things we need in Pinellas county that will help us make progress, here are some things that will help us statewide,'" Cook said. "We had our legislative platform. Now it’s sort of turned — the Legislature is saying, 'This is what you will do.'”

Over the last several years, she said the role of politics is growing within boards, even though the positions are supposed to be non-partisan.

It’s easy to find school board videos from across the country of shouting, anger, and accusations. Cook says it’s gotten out of hand.

“When I see what’s happening across the state and across the nation, I am disgusted,” she said.

Paul Rader is a non-partisan political analyst and author. He says school board meetings could become more contentious come November. Florida residents will vote on Amendment 1, which would make school board elections partisan beginning in 2026.

“Right now, Florida, I believe its 41 states that have non-partisan elections," Rader said. "So Florida would become one of the odd ones out in that regard."

Cook says she will continue to fight against the partisanship. She says who is elected to the board should be tied to qualifications, not what party they align with.

Democrats rip Trump surrogate Rep. Byron Donalds for saying Black families were stronger during Jim Crow

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., took to the House floor on Wednesday morning to denounce reported comments made by Florida Rep. Byron Donalds — a top Trump campaign surrogate and possible vice presidential contender — claiming Black families were stronger during the Jim Crow era of segregation in the United States.

“We were not better off when a young boy named Emmett Till could be brutally murdered without consequence because of Jim Crow," Jeffries, who is Black, said Wednesday. "We were not better off when Black women could be sexually assaulted without consequence because of Jim Crow. We would not better off when people could be systematically lynched without consequence because of Jim Crow.

"How dare you make such an ignorant observation? You better check yourself before you wreck yourself.”

Donalds, who is also Black and grew up in the same area of Brooklyn that Jeffries now represents, made the comments during a Trump campaign event in Philadelphia on Tuesday aimed at recruiting Black voters to former President Donald Trump’s camp, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. 

“You see, during Jim Crow, the Black family was together. During Jim Crow, more Black people were not just conservative — Black people have always been conservative-minded — but more Black people voted conservatively,” Donalds said, as reported by the Inquirer.

At the “Congress, Cognac, and Cigars” event, Donalds denounced government programs aimed at helping the poor and enforcing civil rights as hurting Black Americans and eroding family values.

Biden’s campaign publicized the comment and a Democratic National Committee spokesperson said it was “absurd to suggest” the Jim Crow-era “was anything but a horrific stain on our country’s history.” The NAACP’s president, Derrick Johnson, denounced the remark.

“Jim Crow was the name of the racial caste system which operated primarily, but not exclusively, in southern and border states, between 1877 and the mid-1960s,” according to the website for the Jim Crow Museum at Michigan’s Ferris State University. The site explained that Jim Crow was both a legal framework to oppress Black Americans and a cultural one that relegated them to the lowest social status enforced by systemic violence.

“All major societal institutions reflected and supported the oppression of black people," the site said.

“The Jim Crow laws and system of etiquette were undergirded by violence, real and threatened. Black people who violated Jim Crow norms, for example, drinking from the white water fountain or trying to vote, risked their homes, their jobs, even their lives,” the museum continued in its summary of the Jim Crow era.

In a video posted on social media responding to Jeffries, Donalds accused the Biden campaign of lying about his comments.

“Now they're trying to say that I said Black people were doing better under Jim Crow. I never said that. They are lying. But why would you be surprised? Because they always lie,” Donalds said. “What I said was, is that you have more Black families under Jim Crow and it was the Democrat policies under (the former Department of Health, Education and Welfare), under the welfare state, that did help to destroy the Black family. That’s what I said.”

“I know what I said and I'll say it straight to camera," he continued. "They got to run to the Philadelphia Inquirer to use their lies. Joe Biden does not care about Black people. He never has. He cares about power."

The Inquirer did not immediately return a request for comment.

“I grew up in the Jim Crow era. I went to school in the Jim Crow era. I traveled in the Jim Crow era. I know what life was like under Jim Crow,” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, wrote on social media. “For one of my colleagues to say life is worse now than under Jim Crow is absolutely absurd and unconscionable.”

Lawmaker claims opponent doesn't live in her district

Two different disputes are currently being discussed regarding current residences of state legislators running for re-election. Former state Sen. Randolph Bracy is questioning the residency of state Sen. Geraldine Thompson, who he is expected to square off against in a Democratic primary in August.

State Rep. Bruce Antone also faces questions about whether he lives in the district he represents. That ethics claim was made by his Democratic primary challenger, Janet Buford-Johnson. 

To serve in Tallahassee, there are plenty of rules, including one that requires a member to, “maintain his or her legal residence within that district for the duration of his or her term.”

But Bracy claims his opponent lives in a part of Windemere that’s outside of the District 15 she represents.

And he’s threatening to sue her if she doesn’t fix it.

“I just thought it was necessary, because I think it’s time that we have leadership that stands on the truth and that we express that to our constituents and lead them in the right way,” Bracy said.

Thompson says Bracy is wrong. She says she in fact does live in her district, adding that she spends time with her family in Ocoee.

“My husband and I still own in Windemere. We entertain there, go to worship and that kind of thing," she said. "There is nothing in the state statues that prohibits more than one residence."

Allegations like these are not uncommon in Florida politics, but Tallahassee attorney Mark Herron said they won’t be resolved in the courtroom, but in the Senate itself.

”If somebody was concerned about the residency of a member of the Senate, they would bring that matter to the attention of the Senate," Herron said. "There’s senate rules on residency and how you address it."

House and Senate rules list 13 different factors that can be considered for residency, meaning it’s not necessarily as simple as a homestead exemption or what’s on a candidate’s driver’s license.