One Kentucky public school district is speaking against a proposed constitutional amendment that would affect school funding — raising questions about what school districts can say on political issues.?

Pulaski County Schools, a district seated around Somerset with more than 7,500 students, shared a message advocating against Amendment 2 on its official Facebook page Friday. Similar images were on the websites of each school within the district as of Tuesday morning. Some Kentucky Republicans, including Congressman Thomas Massie, suggested the posts “blatantly” broke state law.

Meanwhile, the district released a Tuesday statement that said nothing prevented it from sharing the posts, adding: “The Pulaski County Board of Education is not intimidated by the threats of politicians and advocates of Amendment 2,” which it called “an attempt to siphon off public school money for private schools, particularly Charter Schools.”

The school district’s online messages cited data specifically about how the amendment would affect the district from a recent Kentucky Center for Economic Policy (KyPolicy) report.?

If passed, Amendment 2 would allow the Kentucky General Assembly to fund nonpublic schools, such as private or charter schools. Advocates against the amendment say the change could cut into funding for existing public schools.?

KyPolicy, a progressive think tank, estimated that Pulaski County Schools could lose between 8% to 16% of its current budget based on two possible models from other states if the amendment passes.?

Superintendent Patrick Richardson shared a statement from the school district with the Kentucky Lantern via email. The statement says school board members have received open records requests “for their private cell phone and devices for texts or emails discussing this issue” and acknowledged a call for the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office to investigate the posts.

“Pulaski Board members have been threatened and intimidated by some on social media for speaking against this and for exercising their First Amendment rights,” the statement said. “The US Supreme Court said long ago that those rights are not surrendered at the school house gate.”

The school district cited a landmark Kentucky Supreme Court decision, Rose v. Council for Better Education, saying that state law gives the district’s school board “the power to do ‘all things necessary’ to carry out its duties and responsibilities.” The district added that Amendment 2 focuses on school funding.

“The Pulaski County Board and Superintendent have a legitimate and legal right to protect public school money that should properly be spent on the public education of children in Pulaski County,” the statement said. “Nothing prevents the Board from taking a public position on this issue that goes to the very heart of the existence of the Pulaski County Public Schools. This is an ‘educational issue’ and a ‘school funding issue.’ The Pulaski Board Members and Superintendent have a right to speak against Amendment 2.”

Jennifer Ginn, communications director for the Kentucky Department of Education, said in an email that public schools and their leaders “may engage in conversations with their communities to educate community members on public school funding and measures that may impact funding to Kentucky’s public schools.”

“With knowledge of how public schools in their own communities may be impacted, individual community members may make informed decisions on matters impacting Kentucky’s public schools,” Ginn said.

Kentucky law has some limits on how school employees can engage in political activities, such as school board elections. State law also says that public funds cannot be used “against any public question that appears on the ballot.” However, there is disagreement as to whether the law applies to a school district.

According to guidance from the Kentucky School Boards Association, school district employees may have limited political speech during work hours. KSBA, which officially opposes the amendment, says in its guidance that school boards may discuss the amendment during public meetings and board members can share their personal opinions on the topic.?

“Districts always strive to stay within the bounds of policy and meet every letter of the law,” said Joshua Shoulta, the communications director for KSBA. “There is gray area between the use of public funds for lobbying — which is legal — versus use of public funds for what statute refers to as ‘political activity.’ Amendment 2 is a perfect example, as districts seek to inform their communities on the potential consequences of granting lawmakers broad new authority to divert public tax dollars to private schools.”

Pulaski County Schools’ posts has gained criticism from Republicans, including Massie, who represents Kentucky’s fourth congressional district. In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Massie said the school district “is blatantly breaking the law by using public resources to campaign against a ballot initiative.” Pulaski County is in Kentucky’s fifth congressional district.?

T.J. Roberts, the GOP candidate for the House 66th District seat in Boone County, said on X that he was “extremely concerned” about the school district’s online posts and called for an investigation by the Attorney General’s Office.?

“The people of Kentucky deserve to know whether their tax dollars are being used illegally to undermine parental rights and school choice,” Roberts said. “This kind of unlawful activity cannot be tolerated, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that those responsible are held accountable.”?

Republican Attorney General Russell Coleman issued an advisory Tuesday evening “to remind those entrusted with the administration of tax dollars appropriated for public education that those resources must not be used to advocate for or against the” proposed constitutional amendment. Coleman’s advisory highlighted the section of state law prohibiting tax dollars from being used to campaign for public questions.?

“This prohibition on the use of tax dollars to campaign on either side of a ballot question necessarily extends to the use of any public resources paid for by those tax dollars to campaign either in support of or in opposition to the question,” the advisory said.?

The advisory said the Attorney General’s Office will continue monitoring reports about this topic and is “prepared to take any necessary action within its authority to ensure these constitutional and statutory limitations are upheld.”

In a Monday press conference at the Kenton County Courthouse, Coleman said he was aware of the post, which he called “pretty crystal clear.”

“If indeed there’s a violation of state law, we know what the facts are,” Coleman said. “We’re looking at the law. We will act with our partners accordingly.”?

The proposed constitutional amendment was a priority for many GOP lawmakers earlier this year, despite a small group of Republicans in the House and Senate ultimately voting against it. Democrats, including Gov. Andy Beshear, have strongly voiced opposition to it.?

Kentucky voters will decide to reject or adopt the amendment this fall on Nov. 5.

Editor’s note: This story was updated with additional comments Tuesday evening.?