Democrats, Lombardo both deserve detention for their free lunch food fight

Democrats can -- and probably should -- criticize the governor for vetoing their free lunch bill. But not including key information about the status quo for most children in the state is irresponsible. (Photo by Amanda Mills/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

My 9-year-old can get free breakfast and lunch every school day. No questions asked.

That fact may come as a surprise to Nevadans who have seen recent hemming and hawing about how mean ole Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo vetoed a bill last session that would have funded free lunch for all students. Democrats, it appears, are so starved to make the governor look evil that they are highlighting the veto without including some caveats that are vital for parents and guardians.

Yes, Lombardo last session vetoed a Democratic-backed bill that would have funded free school lunches for 2024-25 academic year. But it is also true that the majority of students across the state already have guaranteed access to free breakfast and lunch — a fact that conveniently keeps getting omitted.

Clark County School District, which enrolls 63% of Nevada’s K-12 public students, participates in the federal Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), which allows high poverty schools and districts to serve free breakfast and lunch to all enrolled students without collecting household applications. CEP uses data from other income-based programs — like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) — to determine eligibility for a district or school.

CCSD can be difficult to love, but on this particular issue it has delivered. And so have other districts across the Silver State. Every school within Churchill, Clark, Esmeralda, Humboldt, Lyon, Mineral, Nye and Pershing county school districts are CEP designated , according to the Nevada Department of Agriculture. More than two dozen charter schools are too.

CEP ensures that nobody falls through the cracks. Kids won’t be denied free food because their parents didn’t fill out the application form. It helps families whose incomes might fluctuate wildly and leave them struggling some weeks but not others. It helps families whose household income might be too high to qualify for free or reduced lunch but who are nevertheless feeling their wallets stretched thin. And it helps parents, like me, who are occasionally too busy or stressed to smear SunButter across some bread and throw it in a Ziplock.

(SunButter, if you’re unfamiliar, is the best alternative to peanut butter at nut-free schools. But I digress.)

Democrats can — and probably should — criticize the governor for vetoing their free lunch bill. But not including key information about the status quo for most children in the state is irresponsible. When the Nevada Assembly Democratic Caucus promoted a Daily Beast op-ed skewering Lombardo for the veto, they said the Southern Nevadan candidate who wrote it was running “to get that bill passed so kids across the valley can have what he didn’t.”

Maybe he was referring to charter school kids?

The messaging of “hey, we’re doing a lot of good here but we want to do better” isn’t a complicated one. Democrats are keen to remind us, for example, that Nevada currently protects abortion rights via statute but wants to better protect those rights via a state constitutional amendment.

Lombardo has rightly called the Democrats messaging “misinformation.” I have seen numerous posts on social media from parents asking about how to get free lunch at school, and the comments sections have been rife with confusion and people incorrectly telling people who need food assistance that it is unavailable because of Lombardo.

Since Gov. Lombveto publicly called them out, Democrats have pivoted to “EVEN ONE KID GOING WITHOUT A MEAL IS BAD, BRUH” and “80% covered still means 20% not covered.” Both are true statements. But that’s not the weeks-long campaign we’ve seen on this issue.

There is a lot to criticize the governor about — literal life and death stuff . Even on the narrow issue of free school lunches, Lombardo’s argument that “everyone who needs it can get it” ignores the reality that some parents will forget, or be too proud, or be too scared to fill out an application. It’s well established that many people who qualify for safety net programs don’t sign up for them.

Even more egregious, Lombardo has suggested that his veto was justified because 73% of free-lunch food goes to waste, a figure that has been taken out of context. The Nevada Independent fact checked that claim months ago and was told by the researchers themselves that the 73% figure should “not be taken out of context to generalize these findings to schools everywhere.”

Also, the figure specifically looked at vegetables.

Kids don’t eat veggies. As a parent of three young kids, I could have told you that. I can confidently say at least 73% of the veggies I pack my kids end up being thrown out too, but I still pack them because 25% is better than 0% and I can’t not attempt to feed my kids just because they can be finicky goblins about carrots.

That same paper, by the way, found that 19% of entrees, 47% of fruit, and 25% of milk were thrown out. Guess the Dems aren’t the only ones who like to omit inconvenient stuff.

It is absurd that of his dozens of vetoes this has become the lynchpin for Democrats. Kids do better in school when they aren’t hungry, yes, but they also do better when they’re not being forced to move every year because of rising rent prices. Kids do better when their parents can live off one full-time job and have the time and energy to be active and engaged at home. Kids do better when they have access to extracurricular activities, quality teachers, and appropriate class sizes.

If we want to have a conversation about school breakfast and lunches, we can certainly talk about their nutritional value and quality. But perhaps the real question we should be asking is: Why does so much of Nevada so easily meet the federal standards for community-wide free and reduced lunch eligibility? Why are so many households struggling?

The answer to that question is, of course, complicated and doesn’t allow for cutesy taglines like “the governor stole our lunch money.” Maybe Nevada will have it one day.