By BEN ORR
Guest Columnist
The goal in any democratic election is to allow residents the opportunity to select representatives who reflect their values and align with their personal vision of the community. Every year, voters make their way to the polls, doing their best to educate themselves on a variety of candidates.
The candidates, similarly, work tirelessly to reach voters and differentiate themselves from their competition. Surprisingly, most candidates end up campaigning on similar platforms – at least in general. In school board races, every candidate claims to support students, teachers, transparency, and fiscal responsibility. With little else beyond these broad statements, voters are left in the dark on specific values, policy positions, and political ideology.
I support Senate Bill 287, now in the House of Representatives, which would add another level of transparency for voters in the only non-partisan position still on the ballot in Indiana. In every other race, from city clerk to sheriff, voters can see a party affiliation next to each candidate’s name when they cast their vote. This isn’t meant to be the only criteria used in your selection, but it adds to what you have already heard and seen during the long and difficult to follow campaign season.
I would love if we all had the time and inclination to delve deep into each candidate’s personal history, social circles, and related experience, but the simple truth is we don’t. We rely on word of mouth, maybe a few notable endorsements, and in the end, that little R, D, or I on the ballot. In school board races, the latter is not available.
Arguments against allowing this kind of transparency mostly center around the idea that school boards should remain apolitical and truly non-partisan. Of course, I agree. Sadly, that ship has long since sailed.
For decades, political action committees have been set up to push and fund certain candidates, including in these non-partisan races. IPACE, the Indiana State Teachers’ Union PAC, endorses and funds candidates, as do partisan elected officials and local groups such as Fishers One and HSEqual. Each have their own PACs and split along party lines. It seems that everyone OTHER THAN the common voter knows where non-partisan candidates stand politically.
In my particular race in 2022, I was endorsed by partisan groups and partisan elected officials, as was my opponent. I received funding from partisan elected officials and groups, as did my opponent.
To make the point extremely clear, my opponent was also simultaneously serving as the Vice President of the Fishers Democratic Club, WHILE seeking re-election for a “non-partisan” race. She actually FOUNDED this club, and served as its inaugural president in 2020, while also in this “non-partisan” office.
Another sitting member of that board seeking re-election was featured on the partisan club’s homepage. Following that member’s school board loss, she immediately sought election for the PARTISAN position of city clerk, where she was defeated. Why were 2023 city clerk voters allowed to know her party, while 2022 school board voters were left to guess?
I could continue to point out example after example of partisan ideology, partisan fundraising, and partisan policy making within these “non-partisan” races, but again, it won’t help voters in future elections. Next year, we will once again be left in the dark in only one set of races. Our school boards should reflect the community they represent. The data shows clearly that partisan races yield higher turnouts than their non-partisan counterparts. The reason is clear: voters don’t know what candidates represent beyond those common, ambiguous bullet points.
We all have some type of political leaning, no matter how slight. Our party affiliation isn’t meant to define us entirely, but again, it is simply another filter for residents in their selection process. Based on recent demographic shifts, my view may in fact be self-defeating, but regardless my stance remains: elected officials should reflect the values and vision of their community.
In this effort, candidates must be transparent in their political affiliations and allow voters the opportunity to decide its weight.
Ben Orr serves on the Hamilton Southeastern Schools Board of Trustees representing District 4.
Great letter. There is no reason why this has not already happened. Party affiliation gives voters just a little bit more information about the candidates on the ballot they might be less familiar with. It gives you an additional data point from which to start asking questions.
I agree entirely, Mr. Orr. Ahead of the 2022 school board race, we had candidates using democrat fundraising platform (Act Blue), handing their yard signs out at the Hamilton County Dems club, elected Democrat officials were hosting school board fundraisers for their preferred (secretly) Democrat candidates, stood up Democrat-leaning Political Action Committees (you can tell by who is donating to the PAC), and Democrat legislators advising them on how to “scare” away Republican voices from school board meetings. This is completely legal, however, these events led to county political parties necessarily becoming more involved in the campaigns for the 2022 race. Then in 2024 there was more outcry against “partisan politics” in schools boards. It’s imperative both sides play by the same rules. Democrats should not be allowed to run as “non-partisan” while benefiting from the support, advice, and strategy of local and state politicians (or their funding), while shaming conservative candidates for doing the same.
For years, the HSE school board has struggled with efficiency. As our country refocuses on the need for effective governance at all levels, it’s time for school board members who prioritize partisanship over progress to take notice.
Explicit political party identification fosters division and weakens informed debate and decision-making. This was evident in the last school board meeting when key items were unjustly kept from being separated from the consent agenda, undermining transparency and accountability.
A school board’s responsibility is to govern—managing budgets, shaping policies, and ensuring clear communication. These tasks are not partisan; they require collaboration and thoughtful decision-making in the best interest of the children and families they serve.
Rather than engaging in political grandstanding at the statehouse or writing partisan op-eds, board members should focus on professional development—attending ISBA training and properly applying Robert’s Rules of Order. A commitment to these principles would lead to a more efficient and effective HSE school board, truly dedicated to serving the entire community.
I keep seeing the word “transparency” in regards to making school board races partisan. This bill would allow a person to vote for a school board candidate without ever seeing there name. That’s not transparency. Voting for a person solely because of a letter by there name is not voting for a person, it is voting for a political party.
I think fewer locally elected positions should be partisan. We would all benefit from less partisanship, not more.
Mr. Orr , the premise you suggest in your first paragraph is the very reason that school board elections are currently mandated by law to at least appear non partisan.
That legislation was put in place for (still) valid reasons & your justification in support for rescinding it in the form of SB 287 sound more in line with a desire to win elections than with the thoughtful administration of a school system.
Remind us again, which were you elected to do ; lobby for state politics or oversee the administration of a school system ?
When the topic is the education of our children we should strive to put aside any hyper-partisan culture wars & allow the better nature of our angels to prevail.
Respectfully, I disagree. There will be less people that will want to run knowing it is a partisan game.
We do not need to bring politics to the local school boards.
Politics have nothing to do with local schools. It will just divide communities more than the students will suffer.
Citizens,
Let us consider this matter with wisdom and fairness. Should school boards serve the interests of political factions, or should they serve the children and families who rely on them? If we allow party labels in school board elections, we risk shifting the focus from education to division, from reason to rivalry.
School Boards Exist to Serve Students, Not Political Parties
Education is not a battlefield for partisanship. It is a foundation upon which a society is built. If school board candidates are marked by party, many will choose based on allegiance rather than merit. This does not elevate our schools—it reduces them to extensions of national politics.
The duty of a school board is not to uphold a party platform, but to ensure students receive knowledge, opportunity, and guidance to become capable members of society. Those entrusted with this responsibility must be chosen for their wisdom, their service, and their commitment to students—not for the party under which they are listed.
Partisanship Weakens Good Governance
Already, political passions cloud our discourse. If school board elections are driven by party labels, every policy will be judged through a partisan lens rather than by its merit. This will not strengthen schools—it will entrench division.
Consider this: does placing a letter next to a name truly inform the voter of a candidate’s understanding of school budgeting, curriculum, or student well-being? Or does it merely encourage assumptions? Schools require thoughtful leadership, not political loyalty.
True Transparency Comes From Understanding, Not Shortcuts
If we seek transparency, let it be of ideas, policies, and qualifications—not of party affiliation alone. If voters wish to know where a candidate stands, let them demand:
• Debates that reveal wisdom and judgment.
• Public discussions that hold candidates accountable to the people they serve.
• A culture where citizens seek truth rather than the comfort of familiar labels.
A society flourishes when its people think for themselves. Education is the foundation of such a society.
Final Thought
The duty of a school board is sacred—it is to prepare the next generation to lead. This duty is too important to be reduced to party politics. Let us choose our leaders by their ability, their knowledge, and their dedication to students, not by the faction to which they belon.
Whether Senate Bill 287 passes or not, voters need to hear or see written material on how these candidates support very important issues concerning students, teachers, staff, bus drivers and aids and even hired first responders. As quoted by Ben Orr, “Voters don’t know what candidates represent beyond those common, ambiguous bullet points.”
Will the candidates be able to have solutions about my list of concerns about schools today: bullying, fights between students, shootings, fair treatment towards all students, disrespect from students towards teachers and persons of authority, no allowed physical contact from adults trying to separate fighting students, physical fights between students on school buses, drugs within the schools, and if a student brings any kind of weapon to school, find out why. Was it to protect themselves from a bully where the school did not intervene to stop the bullying? And the issues of DEI, CRT, SEL and the pronoun problem where parents are kept in the dark about that issue. And on the minimal side of the list: outsourced unhealthy lunches instead of home cooked healthy food made at the schools and not enough recesses for the elementary students. And the final issue is tearing down current schools to build new ones. What a waste of money! Build these schools to last like the old ones built of brick.
If there is an open debate, how would the candidates answer and elaborate a solution from my list of concerns?