The amendment is yet another measure on which Floridians will vote this November. Whereas Florida school board elections are currently nonpartisan, the amendment proposes that party affiliation be part of the process. 

It is mostly Republican-backed, given Gov. Ron DeSantis’s (R-FL) focus on education policy over his terms, as well as the amendment’s initial sponsorship by Republican state Rep. Spencer Roach. 

Still, the pros and cons of its passage play more to situational preference than party line. Not wanting political goals to outweigh student welfare is a nonpartisan point. But that is not the determined trajectory of the amendment.

Concerns such as inhibited debate and pressure to vote party affiliation, raised by Democratic state Sen. Rosalind Osgood, say more about the Democratic Party’s holdings in Florida than signal a distinguishing feature of it. Those are standard aims of a good election process, but they are of particular importance to the Democratic Party in Florida, which battles against a Republican majority led by DeSantis.

Emphasis on campaign transparency and fundamental ideological differences likewise are not, or should not be, merely Republican defenses. In this case, Roach and DeSantis want to prevent ideologically vague school board candidates from slipping into office. Fundamental party differences serve as signposts.

The focus on transparency, then, is the primary argument for Amendment 1. It is a cheap political tactic to avoid giving definite answers, and a lack of party commitment allows for the flip-flopping that characterizes it. According to Roach’s vision, true independents will rise to the occasion and make themselves known, separate from other party-labeled candidates.

But anxiety will surround board members based on their party lines, and the education system will be overrun with politicking. Or so goes Osgood’s main argument against the amendment. 

The problem is that the education system is hyperpoliticized even before the amendment. Osgood’s own statement that policy discussion “becomes destructive when it’s entrenched in a certain political party” betrays her inescapable partisanship. It is perfectly fine for board members to concede the goodness of a policy idea, even when the idea is a common talking point of one party. To claim that party affiliation itself is “destructive” is not an argument against the amendment, and it shows her immediate biases.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Apart from individual sway, the Democratic Party’s conception of neutral policy works against these nonpartisan efforts. As a basic example, the Democratic Party wants to “recognize LGBTQ+ History Month” in schools. This effort is standard educational content for them. Republicans, on the other hand, want to avoid sexuality talk in the classroom. Which is more neutral?

Not that neutrality is always the best promoter of the truth, but it appeals to common sense. The way for Republicans to depoliticize Florida schools, then, is precisely by means of the partisan politics that work against them. Republicans are forced to play the Democrats’ game by turning it back on them.