When voters research candidates for local school board elections, they often look for independent voices with fresh ideas. However, sometimes what appears to be independence is anything but.
At their latest meeting, Moms for Liberty – El Paso County made it official: they are running a coordinated slate of candidates across multiple school districts. Their endorsements included Eddie Waldrep for D20, Jamilynn D’Avola for D49, and Luis Ybarra Jr. for D3.
That matters because these endorsements confirm what many suspected. These candidates are not standing on their own. They are part of a larger, national political agenda aimed at reshaping public education into something narrower, more politicized, and far less responsive to the real needs of families.
A Coordinated National Agenda
Moms for Liberty doesn’t hide its playbook. They brand themselves as the defenders of “parental rights,” but their actual campaigns consistently focus on book bans, manufactured outrage over transgender students, and efforts to silence teachers.
By endorsing Waldrep, D’Avola, and Ybarra, they’ve tied each of these candidates directly to that national agenda. For voters in Academy District 20, District 49, and District 3, that’s an important lens to keep in mind. These campaigns are not local grassroots efforts. They are extensions of a larger ideological project.
And this is not happening in isolation. Earlier this year, during a joint straw poll hosted by Moms for Liberty, Advocates for D20 Kids, and Church for All Nations, it was publicly stated that Eddie Waldrep, Susan Payne, and Brian Moody would be receiving coordinated support.
Susan Payne has since tried her best to distance herself publicly from Moms for Liberty, but these repeated endorsements make that impossible. The difference here is the overlap. Moms for Liberty’s endorsements are tightly intertwined with church-based organizing, blurring the line between grassroots campaigning and a coordinated ideological project.
Bodyguards and Surveillance Devices?
The meeting itself also raises questions about priorities. Moms for Liberty praised the use of bodyguards to “protect” their event, portraying themselves as embattled victims of progressive parents. They also gushed over a presentation by Jordan Scott, billed as an “investigative journalist” for The Peak News, a project run by Chaim Goldman, who also created The Church Voters Guide, a well-known tool for mobilizing Evangelical church turnout.
Scott reportedly provided the chapter with a mysterious “device” to help them with future “investigations.” Whether that means surveillance of teachers, opponents, or just a really advanced garage-door opener was not made clear. The only detail we know is that some attendees thought they were free, but in fact, he was selling them. One even went missing.
If that sounds more like a scene from a slapstick comedy than a school board campaign, you’re not alone.
When candidates backed by Moms for Liberty are surrounded by bodyguards and playing with spy gadgets, it’s fair to ask: Is this about education or about waging a political war?
What’s at Stake for Voters
These kinds of theatrics distract from the issues that matter most in our schools: funding, class sizes, deferred maintenance, teacher retention, and student performance. Parents want safe classrooms, not culture war skirmishes and surveillance schemes.
By putting forward Waldrep, D’Avola, and Ybarra, Moms for Liberty is asking voters to sign onto their national brand of conflict-driven politics. That may suit their agenda, but it doesn’t serve our students.
Transparency matters. Voters deserve to know exactly who is behind these candidates and to ask hard questions about whether electing them would strengthen our schools or simply import more division into already fragile communities.
Bottom line: The endorsements of Eddie Waldrep (D20), Jamilynn D’Avola (D49), and Luis Ybarra Jr. (D3) confirm that these are not independent voices. Together with earlier promises of support for Susan Payne and Brian Moody, it’s clear these campaigns are part of a coordinated national strategy. One that treats school boards less like places to solve problems and more like battlegrounds in a political war.