School boards enter new political era in November election
With Indiana’s primary election settled this week, the attention now turns to the November general election, where, on the education front, school board races are heading into unfamiliar territory.
Candidates can appear on the general election ballot with a party affiliation for the first time . . . and many school districts are also weighing referenda at the same time voters will choose who to oversee their local school systems.
The candidate filing window for school board races opens May 19 and closes at noon June 18 – earlier than in the past to afford these candidates more time to get out in front of voters, since school board races do not have primaries. Under new election rules enacted under SEA 287-2025, school board candidates must indicate whether they are affiliated with a political party, running as an independent, or unaffiliated and not identifying as independent.
That means right now, school board candidates are not just deciding whether to run. They are deciding how political they want their candidacy to look.
Steve Horton, director of board services for the Indiana School Boards Association, explains the new law creates pressure for candidates who may still prefer to run outside partisan labels, especially incumbents.
“I can tell you that sitting board members struggle with, I think, for the most part, desiring to be nonpartisan, but the law doesn’t make it easy for them to do that,” Horton divulges. “The fact that if I choose to be nonpartisan, I know that I’m going to be listed last among candidates on the ballot – and that’s not an advantageous place to be.”
The political label will affect more than ballot appearance. ISBA guidance notes that like all other party candidates, school board candidates who claim a major party affiliation must have voted in that party’s two most recent Indiana primaries or obtain written certification from the county party chair. That could force some candidates to declare themselves independent or unaffiliated, and it opens the door to potentially uncomfortable party ballot challenges.
And, notably, straight-party voting will not apply to school board races, so voters must still select school board candidates individually. Name ID will be important for candidates in these races to not get lost in a list of names on a ballot, especially when multiple people are running for one seat under the same party label.
The change is expected to reshape local campaigns, especially in suburban districts where school board races have already become more ideologically charged in recent years.
We’ve already told you about some board candidates in recent cycles aligning themselves with county party organizations and political groups.
ISBA Executive Director Terry Spradlin clarifies the association is not advising candidates whether to declare a party affiliation. But he says candidates and incumbents are already weighing the potential pros and cons . . . including what happens if a party-affiliated board member leaves office.
A vacancy for a board member who declares a major party affiliation will, going forward, be filled through a party caucus. But a vacancy for a member who ran independent, unaffiliated, or without disclosing an affiliation would instead be filled by the remaining school board members.
The latter process has been traditional for school boards around the state, who, as a body, will interview and appoint new members to fill vacancies. With party-affiliated members now coming into the mix, more control is with the county political parties – as it is with every other local elected board.
“I know some really want to maintain the board’s authority to appoint to fill vacancies when they occur, and that would require them to be nonpartisan, no declaration or affiliation,” Spradlin informs.
Boards understand that question as a matter of local control.
“Boards are very aware of that aspect of this new law,” Horton indicates. “That’s, you know, for sitting board members, they understand how important that is to be really to allow for proper local control.”
Spradlin expects some candidates will declare a party affiliation, particularly challengers and those running for open seats. “I have no doubt about that some of our incumbents for sure, and certainly challengers,” he predicts.
You could see incumbents collectively choose to band together on a nonpartisan slate to maintain the current nonpartisan nature of their board. Horton tells us some boards he’s spoken with are considering that option.
The other unknown is how aggressively county political parties will recruit – and support – candidates.
We’ve reported in our pages over the years how some school districts struggle to find enough people to run to fill board seats up for election. It’s not uncommon to see only one candidate running for a seat, especially in smaller school districts.
Now that school board candidates can run under a political party, county party chairs can play a significant role in slating people to run for those bodies.
“Well, the wild card we don’t know about is how active county parties will be,” Spradlin details. “The parties will be the county chairs and slating candidates. And so if they, you know, decide to be very active in recruiting and slating candidates to run, I assume that will happen to some degree.”
That could make school board elections more organized, more expensive, and more partisan, especially in communities where races have historically been low-profile or even uncontested.
Horton predicts some board members who have run unopposed in the past expect that may continue, particularly in smaller districts. But the new law offers local parties a clearer opening to intervene.
For ISBA, their message to candidates remains focused on governance, not party identity. The association stresses to potential candidates that school board service requires more than simply attending monthly meetings . . . and should be understood as a four-year commitment.
Starting May 12, ISBA will host several free webinars for interested school board candidates to learn the ropes of board governance. School Board Candidate 101 Webinars will be held May 12, 5, 20, and 21, and June 10 and 12. Interested candidates can register at isba-ind.org/more/candidate-101.
“We just want people to understand very clearly what you’re signing up for and what it takes to really be effective,” Horton states.
The association will continue to stress that board members’ work is not supposed to become a partisan exercise once they are seated.
“Our message is absolutely nonpartisan, and always will be,” Horton asserts. “And we hope that that’s the nature of the work that board members do when they come together.”
Spradlin notes school board members have limited but important statutory duties, including adopting budgets, setting policy, establishing goals, hiring and evaluating the superintendent, and monitoring progress.
“We always encourage folks to leave politics outside of the boardroom, at the boardroom door, and come and focus on their core duties,” Spradlin says.
But politics may be difficult to keep out of the election cycle because school finance will also be on the ballot in many communities.
As regular readers may know, Indiana law now requires school referenda to be placed on general election ballots, a shift that could make November especially consequential for districts asking voters to approve or renew property tax support.
Referenda have historically been less likely to pass in fall general elections than in spring elections, though renewals tend to fare better than new requests.
Spradlin reveals he hears there could be “60-70, potentially” referenda on the November ballot, with districts analyzing the financial effects of SEA 1-2025 and preparing local public questions. We have also previously reported that there could be as many as 80 on ballots in the fall.
“Referenda is certainly a hot topic right now, and whether to proceed with one and districts are doing their homework to analyze their numbers,” Spradlin details.
Those referenda campaigns could collide directly with school board races. Incumbents may be defending district financial decisions, while challengers frame referenda as “tax increases.”
That dynamic could quickly become a campaign issue.
“It could be a, certainly an election issue, right? A challenger versus the incumbent, and whether they support or oppose a referendum in those communities,” Spradlin points out. “And you know, a challenger might say, you know, the incumbents trying to raise taxes, right, right. Kind of the anti-tax sentiment could emerge as a campaign tactic in some communities, I assume.”
Districts will have to explain why they are seeking additional local revenue, what cuts they have already made or may make, and what happens if voters reject the question. Even in districts that do not pursue a referendum, board members could also likely find themselves defending financial decisions made related to SEA 1.
“You got to be prepared to tell your story and your financial story, and what is that reality?” Spradlin stresses. “And what are the consequences if a referendum doesn’t pass? You know what additional cuts will need to be made, absent those revenues, and so it’s a compelling story that they have to tell.”
Many districts are already trying to make that case.
“I think districts have worked really hard across the state to make it very clear we are responding to changes in our funding we now have to work with to make sure that we can continue to provide services for our students,” Horton explains.
The result is a November election cycle in which voters in many areas of the state may be asked two related questions at once: who should govern their school districts, and whether those districts should receive additional local tax support.
By June 18, we will know who is running – and how many candidates choose to identify themselves with a political party on the ballot. By early July, the picture should also be clearer on which districts are moving forward with referenda.