Subcommittee advances bill to clarify voluntary religious expression in schools after heated debate

Vice Chair Hassenbeck’s bill, House Bill 32‑40, cleared the House A&B Subcommittee on Education on a 6‑4 vote after more than an hour of questioning and debate over parental consent forms and the bill’s practical effects. The measure, as presented, would allow voluntary religious expression by students and employees during non‑instructional time if a parent or guardian gives express consent.

The bill’s sponsor, Vice Chair Hassenbeck, told the committee the legislation seeks to “provide guardrails” so students can exercise First Amendment rights without exposing schools or staff to litigation. She said the proposal is voluntary for students, requires parental consent, and would prevent any authorized religious activity from taking place over the school’s public audio or during instructional time. “This is just allowing a public school child to practice their First Amendment rights,” Hassenbeck said.

Opponents repeatedly focused on the consent form language. Representative McCain highlighted a provision on page 3 that the form includes “an express waiver of the right to bring a claim under state or federal law,” asking whether such a waiver is legally enforceable. Hassenbeck said the language is intended to clarify that parents who opt in will not need to pursue litigation over a denial but acknowledged that the Supreme Court would examine whether the program is truly voluntary and whether opt‑outs are adequately protected.

Members also debated when and how expression would occur. Hassenbeck said the activity would occur during non‑instructional windows — before school, at lunch, or similar times — and emphasized local districts would set logistics. She told the committee student‑led activities would be typical unless parents specifically permitted adult staff to participate.

Critics, including Representative Waldron and Representative McCain, warned the measure risks creating a power imbalance when teachers, coaches or other staff with authority mingle with students in religious settings and expressed concern that the consent form could effectively make parents sign away constitutional protections. Waldron said the bill “creates a tendency in which you will have religious insiders and outsiders in a school setting” and asked committee members to vote no.

Supporters argued the bill clarifies existing rights and adds protections for districts. Representative Wooley, a former teacher, said the bill reinforces parental authority and provides AG guidance to help districts stay protected from litigation. Hassenbeck pointed to the attorney general’s role in the bill, saying the office would provide advice and that administrative rules by the attorney general or education department could further refine implementation.

After one‑minute closing statements from members on both sides, the committee opened the roll and the clerk announced the motion carried, 6 aye and 4 nay. The committee record shows the bill passed out of committee for further consideration.