State Superintendent Jill Underly wins second term in office, defeating GOP-backed candidate
Incumbent Jill Underly, who had the backing of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, won a second term as state superintendent on Tuesday, defeating education consultant and Republican-backed candidate Brittany Kinser.
The Associated Press called the race at 10:05 p.m. with Underly leading by more than 5 points and more than 80% of the votes counted.
The state superintendent, a technically nonpartisan position, is responsible for providing guidance for the state's 421 public school districts, leading the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) — an agency responsible for administering state and federal funds, licensing teachers and developing educational curriculum and state assessments — and also holds a position on the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents.
Throughout the campaign, Underly faced criticism from her opponent, Republicans and others for her recent approval of changes to state testing standards and poor communication with school districts.
Underly defended her decisions throughout the campaign, however, and said that she has served as 'the No. 1 advocate for public education' in her first term and would continue to do so if reelected. Prior to being elected to the top DPI position, Underly worked as assistant director in DPI. She also previously served as a principal and superintendent of the Pecatonica Area School District and taught in public schools in Indiana.
Underly received endorsement from Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state's largest teachers' union, and AFT-Wisconsin The Democratic Party of Wisconsin contributed over $850,000 to her campaign. While Underly had the backing of the state Democratic party, Democrat Gov. Tony Evers refused to endorse in the race.
Underly leaned on her advocacy for public schools while making the argument for her reelection. She introduced a budget request for the state that would have invested over $4 billion in public education, saying that it's what schools deserved. Republicans and Evers both said it was too large.
Underly hit her opponent for her lobbying and support for Wisconsin's school choice programs, for lacking a teacher's license and for lacking experience in the state's public school system. She also expressed her opposition to the growth of the state's school choice programs. She said it is not sustainable for the state to fund two school systems and would oppose dedicating more money to the programs.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
11 minutes ago
- New York Post
Kamala Harris' latest Stephen Colbert flop shows exactly what's wrong with both of them
Kamala Harris' visit Thursday to Stephen Colbert's 'Late Show' was a fine reminder of why both of them are failures. Mind you, this marked Harris' eighth Late Show appearance — one more illustration of the futility of doing the same thing over and over and somehow expecting different results. What made her think this would help promote her new book? Advertisement The marquee moment was her inability to say who's leading the Democratic Party just now — which was actually simple honesty, since neither Dems nor Republicans have clear leaders these days unless it's a sitting president. But she couldn't explain that simple truth, nor did Colbert show any sign of getting it as he pushed for an answer. Her incoherence was part of another classic Kam performance, full of word salads and non-answers. Advertisement So why did Colbert even bring her on a supposed comedy show? Because he's followed most of the late-night crew down the 'we need to promote liberal politics' toilet, of course — hosting 176 Dem politicians and one Republican since 2022, and hewing one side of the aisle every minute in between. That formula earned him cancellation and may well take out all his peers. It's another puzzle of modern life that so much of the entertainment industry somehow forgot that sanctimoniousness (political or otherwise) is the enemy of humor.
Politico
12 minutes ago
- Politico
The Supreme Court just dropped a hint about its next big Voting Rights Act case
The order came in a case challenging Louisiana's congressional map, which contains two majority-Black districts out of the state's six House seats. The court heard arguments in the case in March and had been expected to rule by June. But on June 27, the justices punted the case into their next term and ordered that it be reargued. Now, Friday's order loosely sketches the terrain on which the justices want further arguments: the claim that the longstanding practice of drawing majority-minority districts under the Voting Rights Acts may be unconstitutional because of its focus on race in drawing district lines. The voters challenging Louisiana's map had already advanced that constitutional claim in the case, but the justices' call for further briefing on the issue suggests they want to consider the claim more fully. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a landmark law passed during the civil rights era, generally prohibits race-based discrimination in voting laws and practices. In redistricting, the law is used to protect against racial gerrymandering that would unfairly dilute the voting power of racial and ethnic minority voters. States across the country routinely seek to comply with Section 2 by drawing congressional districts where minority voters can elect their chosen candidates. Louisiana's previous map contained only one majority-Black district, even though Black residents make up about a third of the state's population. After a court struck down that map for likely violating the Voting Rights Act because it diluted the power of Black voters, the state's Republican-controlled legislature drew the new map with two majority-Black districts. A group of voters — who self-identified as non-Black — challenged the new map. That's the case now before the Supreme Court. A ruling overturning the current map could result in Republicans picking up an additional congressional seat in Louisiana. The state's two majority-Black districts are both represented by Democrats, while the other four districts are represented by Republicans.
Miami Herald
22 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Trump, Claiming Weak Jobs Numbers Were 'Rigged,' Fires Labor Official
EDITORS NOTE: EDS: SUBS for full writethru to update, revise and expand; TWEAKS headline to reflect firing; ADDS Ember as contributor.) ; (ART ADV: With photo.); (With: ECON-JOBS, FED-BOARD-EXIT); Sydney Ember contributed reporting. President Donald Trump unleashed his fury about weakness in the labor market on Friday, saying without evidence that the data were "rigged" and that he was firing the Senate-confirmed Department of Labor official responsible for pulling together the numbers each month. In a long post on social media, Trump said he had directed his team to fire Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, who was confirmed on a bipartisan basis in 2024. Emily Liddel, an associate commissioner for the bureau, confirmed late Friday that McEntarfer had been fired and that William Wiatrowski, the deputy commissioner, would serve as acting commissioner. The president fired McEntarfer after the bureau released monthly jobs data showing surprisingly weak hiring in July and large downward revisions to job growth in the previous two months. Economists widely interpreted the report as evidence that Trump's policies were beginning to take a toll on the economy, though the president insisted in a subsequent post that the country was "doing GREAT!" Lori Chavez-DeRemer, the labor secretary, echoed Trump's concerns about McEntarfer in a post on social media. "So you know what I did?" Trump later told reporters, as he claimed the numbers were "phony." "I fired her, and you know what? I did the right thing." McEntarfer was appointed to her post by President Joe Biden in 2023 after a long career at the Census Bureau and other agencies, where she served under presidents of both parties, including Trump. Among the Republicans who voted to confirm her as commissioner was Vice President JD Vance, who was then an Ohio senator. The firing prompted swift criticism from economists, former government officials and others, who said the removal would further erode trust in government statistics and make it more difficult for policymakers, investors and businesses, who rely on having dependable data about the economy to make decisions. In addition to the monthly jobs numbers, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is responsible for producing data on inflation, wages and other aspects of the economy. William W. Beach, who led the bureau during Trump's first term, criticized the move to fire McEntarfer on Friday. "It's unfortunate," he said. "This could set a precedent where bad news on many different fronts is a reason for dismissing a person." Beach, who was appointed by Trump in 2019 and remained in the role for the first two years of the Biden administration, said he had never felt pressure to manipulate the data under either president. Even if there were such pressure, he said, there is "no way" the commissioner could interfere in the revisions process, which is conducted by career employees. Erica Groshen, who led the agency under President Barack Obama, called the decision "a terrible precedent." "I hope will be reversed because it undermines the integrity of our statistical system and really all of government data and science," she added, calling it "a very sad day." McEntarfer's tenure got off to a rough start last year when the agency made a series of missteps in which Wall Street firms had access to data before the general public. But none of those incidents involved issues with the statistics themselves. Trump and his top aides have made a habit of attacking government agencies, researchers and watchdogs when they have produced findings that the president does not like. That has led to concerns that Trump could seek to interfere with the operations of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other statistical agencies, particularly if the economy begins to take a turn for the worse. Until now, however, most experts on the statistical system said they remained confident in the data produced by the agencies and had seen no evidence of political interference in their operations. Current and former agency staff members consistently echoed that message -- in part, they said, because they trusted McEntarfer and her counterparts at the other major statistical agencies to protect their independence. "If that pressure got too great, you would see people resigning rather than shape the numbers," Beach said. Economists across the ideological spectrum said Trump's move to oust McEntarfer was likely to erode public confidence in the data published by the administration. "If you want people to stop trusting the numbers coming out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, firing the person who is confirmed by the Senate to make sure those numbers are trustworthy is a real good way to do it," said Martha Gimbel, the executive director of the Budget Lab at Yale, who served in the White House under Biden. McEntarfer could not immediately be reached for comment. On Friday morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released data showing that employers added only 73,000 new jobs in July. It also notably revised data for the previous two months, reducing the number of jobs created by 258,000. While revisions to previous months are common, it was an unusually high number that came as a surprise. It suggested the labor market was not as resilient as it had seemed earlier this summer. Shortly after the numbers were released, Stephen Miran, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, offered an explanation for the jobs revision that was much different from Trump's. On CNBC, he said much of the change was the result of "quirks in the seasonal adjustment process" and even the president's own policies, particularly on immigration, potentially affecting hiring numbers for May and June. He made no mention of any concerns about manipulated data as he sought to recast the slowdown in July as a "pretty decent" jobs report. By evening, Kevin Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council, sought to frame the firing as an attempt to restore "trust" at the statistics agency. Unlike Trump, who described the revisions as politically motivated, Hassett said its jobs figures had been "awful" for some time. "I think it is a good time for a fresh set of eyes to look at what the heck is going on," he told Fox Business. In his social media posts Friday, Trump provided no evidence that McEntarfer had injected political bias into her agency's data. And his criticisms contained contradictions and inaccuracies. Trump complained about not just the latest jobs numbers but also a set of revisions from last year. The bureau, like other statistical agencies, routinely updates its figures to incorporate data that wasn't initially available or to reflect information from more authoritative sources. Last August, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said employers had added roughly 818,000 fewer jobs over a 12-month period than previously believed. That announcement was part of a normal annual revision process, although the change was unusually large. (It was also preliminary -- the final figures were revised down by just under 600,000 jobs.) In a social media post Friday, Trump said the revision was made "right after the election." In fact, the announcement was made roughly 2 1/2 months before Election Day. Indeed, Trump posted about the revisions at the time, calling them a "MASSIVE SCANDAL." To the agency's defenders, however, the twin revisions show that it operates without political bias and was willing to announce politically inconvenient news under presidents of both parties. "President Trump is completely wrong in asserting there's been any sort of anti-Trump bias in the labor market data," said Michael Strain, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "I think that assertion is wholly unsupported." Strain said that government data is revised frequently, and that doing so reflected a "standard" practice to ensure its quality. In this case, he acknowledged that the change was "historically large" but "doesn't smell fishy." Federal statistical agencies have faced mounting challenges in recent years as Americans have become more reluctant to respond to the surveys that are the basis for much of the nation's economic data. Shrinking budgets have made it harder to make up for falling response rates, and to develop new approaches to replace surveys altogether. Those concerns predate the current administration, but have grown worse since Trump returned to office. The statistical agencies have struggled with staff attrition as a result of the president's freeze on federal hiring, combined with the buyouts he offered early in his term. The president's budget also proposed further staff and funding cuts. In June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said it was reducing its collection of data on consumer prices in response to resource constraints. Economists warned that, over time, such cuts could erode the reliability of the inflation data that Federal Reserve policymakers rely on when setting interest rates, and that determine cost-of-living increases in union contracts and Social Security benefits, among other uses. Asked about those cuts Wednesday, Jerome Powell, the Fed chair, said policymakers were "getting the data that we need to do our jobs." But he stressed the importance of the federal statistical agencies. "The government data is really the gold standard in data," he said. "We need it to be good and to be able to rely on it." This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
