Idaho activists sue taxpayers and target children: Six takeaways

As expected, a group of Idaho activists has filed a lawsuit asking the Idaho Supreme Court to block implementation of the state’s new parental choice tax credit. The frivolous legal action is cruel, unnecessary, and filled with factual mistakes and assumptions.

Tellingly, there is no mention of improving outcomes for Idaho children.

Instead, petitioners – which include the Idaho teacher’s union, a sitting state representative, and other activists – spend nearly nine pages of the legal filing arguing they have legal standing to sue. They spend another nine pages asking the court to require taxpayers to reimburse their attorney fees.

This effort is a cynical attempt to punish children by convincing just three judges on the Idaho Supreme Court to overrule the majority of the state legislature and Governor Brad Little and block kids from receiving a high-quality education – wherever they learn.

House Bill 93 is a simple piece of legislation supported by President Trump. It provides a $5,000 tax credit to qualifying families for educational expenses, including tutoring, supplies and tuition expenses. Special needs students could qualify for $7,500 tax credits. 

It has been called the best education choice bill in the nation, mainly because of its simplicity and the fact that it puts decisions and dollars in the hands of parents.

No bureaucrats. No school administrators. Families decide what’s best.

MSPC polling showed Idahoans supported the $5,000 tax credit idea.

Unfortunately, the legal action isn’t a surprise. Every state that has expanded education choice options for families has faced legal challenges from entrenched special interests.

Fortunately for Idaho children, most of those legal attempts have failed. In fact, research shows that no state tax credit legislation like Idaho’s has ever been overturned by a state court. (Note: Idaho’s tax credit is not a tax credit scholarship, a voucher or an Education Savings Account.)

• In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. That case concerned Arizona’s scholarship tax credit. The court ruled the plaintiffs had no standing to sue because tax credits involve personal income, not government money – a critical distinction that serves as an example for other states considering tax credit programs.
  

• The Georgia Supreme Court has also dismissed a case challenging the state’s popular tax credit scholarship program. In Gaddy v. Georgia Department of Revenue, plaintiffs took aim at the program that provided scholarships for children to attend private schools, funded by voluntary donations from individuals and corporations. The court ruled those who brought the case had no standing because neither they, nor the state, was hurt by the tax credit.
  

• In Magee v. Boyd, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the state's two tax credit programs, rejecting several claims made by the plaintiffs under the Alabama Constitution. The court ruled the credits are given to parents or taxpayers, not religious institutions, and do not constitute government appropriations.

  
  

• In Oliver v. Hofmeister, the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship program. Justices said because the parent—not the government—decides where the child goes to school and receives the aid in consideration for their not attending the public schools, the aid is for the student, not for the sectarian or private school.

The overwhelming legal precedent of cases at the federal and state levels shows that education choice programs are constitutional.

Here are some key takeaways from the court filing seeking to overturn Idaho’s new education choice law and block families.

Claim: The plain language of Article IX, section 1, prohibits the legislature from establishing and maintaining a parallel system of private education

This is not an accurate reading of the state’s Constitution, which says, “the stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.”

Such clauses are common in many state constitutions. But nothing in this language prevents the legislature from supplementing that duty or requires parents to send their child to a government school. The constitution simply creates a floor to make sure there is access. It doesn’t create a ceiling – nor should it.

Justices on the West Virginia Supreme Court were met with these same arguments when they were recently asked to rule on the constitutionality of the state’s new education choice law. Justices responded by upholding the program, writing “the Constitution allows the legislature to do both of these things.”

Claim: HB 93 is “subsidizing private schools within the state of Idaho”

Like a broken record, the court filing repeatedly claims private schools in Idaho are “participating” or “under the program.” This is false. There is no program in which private schools can participate. Families can claim a tax credit for money they spent on tuition, or other educational expenses that may have nothing whatsoever to do with private schools. The state does not distribute money to private schools, and no private school in Idaho can sign up for any “program” to receive state money. Only families qualify, and only families benefit.

Claim: The $50 million limit to the program “is likely to be expanded by future Legislatures”

This may or may not be true, but budgeting is the prerogative of the legislative branch. There is also a chance the program may be suspended, and the funding may be reduced to zero. Whether the program may be expanded or reduced by future legislators is irrelevant to the question of constitutionality.

It would be absurd to suggest that policymakers couldn't adopt a higher or lower grocery tax credit, for example, simply because families may buy their groceries at one store or another.

Claim: “The Program will reduce state funding for public schools”

This is conjecture. The filing says, “many students will withdraw from public schools to take advantage of the tax credit.” But with caps on the program, that is simply not possible. At most, 10,000 students could sign up. But Idaho has more than 310,000 public school students, and another 35,000 private and homeschooling families. The math simply does not allow for a large impact – if any – on public schools.

Still, it is worth noting that, while legislators passed HB 93, they also passed an increase in the state’s K-12 budget in the latest legislative session. And if parents are satisfied with their public school, they are unlikely to leave it.

Claim: HB 93 is a major shift in how education is funded in the Gem State

This isn’t just wrong, it’s laughable. At $50 million, the allocation for the parental choice tax is equal to just .0185% of the state’s public school budget. In contrast, the state spends $2,789,717,800 on K-12 public schools. In addition, the state has already been funding private schools with the Launch program.

Claim: HB 93 “redirects funds that would otherwise be allocated to public education to private schools and homeschools”

This is inaccurate. Not only is the money not directed to private schools, but the statement also suggests that every dollar in the state’s budget belongs to public schools first. A ruling against the tax credit on these grounds would set the stage for further litigation on any other budget priority the legislature may wish to pursue.   

It is worth noting that the lawsuit asks the court to move as quickly as possible to block implementation of Idaho’s HB 93.

In fact, activists want the court to rule no later than the day before the program opens - a move intended to block any family – and the public at large – from experiencing any positive impact.

It's a harsh, unnecessary course that proves the legal gamesmanship is more about protecting a system rather than helping children.