(The Lion) — Public school districts across the country are increasingly under scrutiny for allegedly using public resources to influence elections.

As the statewide election kicked off in Virginia Tuesday, a nonprofit watchdog requested formal investigations into allegations of illegal electioneering by the Portsmouth School District.

The complaint by the nonpartisan public-interest litigation firm Liberty Justice Center notes the district hosted an Aug. 8 partisan campaign event for Democrat gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger.

Liberty argues the Spanberger event – which included the free use of school facilities and staff photos with the candidate – constitute an election law violation in the form of an unreported, in-kind donation to her campaign, as well as possibly felonious misuse of public facilities.

“District personnel misused public assets – namely school facilities,” Liberty charges. “It is a crime in Virginia to permit the use of public assets, like public schools, for purposes unrelated to their normal use or other legitimate government interest. … [T]he value given to the Spanberger campaign includes the rental value of the library and classroom spaces and the public salaries of teachers who were encouraged to attend during their workday.”

Fact is, recent reporting by The Lion shows how electioneering by public school districts using taxpayer resources is more common than many realize.

In Missouri, The Lion reported the Missouri Ethics Commission fined the St. Joseph School District after finding district employees used school‐district resources to organize and promote the “yes” campaign for a $20 million bond measure.

It was the third violation of electioneering laws for the district since 2009.

Earlier, a Kentucky district was accused of illegally campaigning on its websites and social media channels against a ballot initiative, while also blocking dissenters.

The district eventually entered into an agreement to stop using district resources to essentially campaign illegally for ballot measures – though it settled the matter only after paying hefty court costs.

Legal experts note while school districts commonly engage in communications about bond measures or school referenda on ballots, too often the districts venture from simply providing information into outright advocacy.

In some places, this can lead to indictments for criminal behavior, with significant fines and even jail time.

In Texas, for example, the law prohibits a school district officer or employee from knowingly spending or authorizing the spending of public funds or resources for political advertising. A violation against electioneering in the Lone Star state is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a $4,000 fine.

The law includes prohibitions against any communication, including the use of email systems from public schools, that is “reasonably likely to influence a voter to vote for or against a measure” or candidate.

In an April 2024 case, a husband and wife who both worked for a local school district were criminally charged after allegations of illegal electioneering in a Texas school election.

The pair sent emails to staff members recommending against supporting certain candidates who favored school choice. They eventually agreed to plead guilty to criminal electioneering, a conviction that will be vacated if they complete a pre-trial diversion program.

Part of the problem is that some jurisdictions have let the practice of electioneering by school districts slide for so long that it’s almost become a commonly accepted practice by administrators, teachers and unions to jointly campaign together.

It was so commonplace in Texas that state Attorney General Ken Paxton sued seven school districts in 2024 for electioneering in legislative races.

“Principals can use their school newsletters to share information about dates for voter registration and voting. They can also share facts about a proposed legislation, like vouchers,” Archie McAfee, president of the Texas Association of Secondary School Principals, told EdWeek.

“What they can’t do is use their school’s equipment to tell people not to vote in favor or against specific candidates.”

The result hasn’t just been a loss in faith by citizens and taxpayers, but a proposal in Texas to tighten anti-electioneering laws so they have more teeth. This includes amending the education code, not just laws governing elections.

As public schools align themselves with unions having a financial stake in ballot measures, watchdog groups warn such actions risk undermining public trust and inviting legal consequences that could extend well beyond fines.

In Chicago, for example, the union contributed $200,000 to a ballot question campaign, which saw teachers and students using classroom time away from school to engage in electioneering in favor of the measure, ostensibly with administration approval.

The growing number of cases – ranging from Missouri, Texas and Chicago to the new allegations in Virginia – suggests electioneering by public school districts isn’t a rare lapse, but a recurring feature of modern educational politics.