Constitutional discrimination: Why voters must get chance to repeal the Blaine Amendment

A state constitution should reflect state values: fairness under the law, equal rights, and freedom of conscience. But today, Idaho’s Constitution still contains a provision that violates those principles.

Article IX, Section 5 — commonly called Idaho’s “Blaine Amendment” — singles out religious institutions and religious schools for unequal treatment. It broadly prohibits public funds from being used “in aid of” any church or religious organization and blocks support for schools controlled by religious denominations.

That’s discrimination, plain and simple. And after recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings, it’s also increasingly out of step with what the U.S. Constitution permits.

Rep. Elaine Price, Coeur d'Alene, introduces a constitutional amendment that would give voters the opportunity to repeal the discriminatory Blaine Amendment

That is why Rep. Elaine Price of Coeur d’Alene was right to introduce a bill containing a constitutional amendment to remove Idaho’s Blaine language.

Supporters of Idaho’s Blaine Amendment often describe it as a safeguard for church-state separation. But historically, that’s not the full story.

The “Blaine Amendment” concept traces back to 1875, when Congressman James G. Blaine proposed a federal constitutional amendment to block public funding for “sectarian” schools. It passed the U.S. House but failed in the Senate.

At the time, many so-called “public” schools still featured Protestant norms—Bible reading, prayers, and religious instruction that reflected the dominant culture. When Catholic immigrants built their own schools and sought equal access to public support, opposition arose quickly. In that climate, “sectarian” frequently functioned as a code word for “Catholic,” and Blaine-style provisions spread across the country as a way to deny Catholic schools equal treatment.

That is not a legacy Idaho should preserve.

Whatever else people believe, a state constitution should not carry forward language shaped by religious bias—written by the majority to keep a minority out.

A constitution is not a storage bin for outdated ideas. It is the highest expression of what the state believes about rights and citizenship.

When the Constitution itself draws a bright line that says, effectively, “religious people and organizations don’t get equal access,” that is a serious problem—even before a single court case is filed.

Neutrality does not mean hostility toward religion. Neutrality means government plays fair: religious and nonreligious citizens are treated the same under the law.

Idaho’s Blaine Amendment fails that test.

Over the last several years, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that states may not exclude people or organizations from generally available public benefit programs simply because they are religious.

• In Trinity Lutheran v. Comer (2017), Missouri denied a church preschool access to a neutral public grant for playground resurfacing solely because it was religious. The Court said that kind of exclusion violates the Constitution.

  
  

• In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), the Court held that if a state creates a scholarship program that allows families to choose private schools, it cannot block participation simply because a school is religious.

  
  

• And in Carson v. Makin (2022), the Court rejected Maine’s attempt to exclude religious schools from a tuition assistance program that otherwise allowed families to use funds for private education.

Taken together, these decisions deliver a clear message: states can’t use “no-aid” provisions as a license to discriminate against religious citizens and organizations.

So the question for Idaho is straightforward: If our Constitution contains language designed to exclude—and courts won’t allow it to be applied as broadly as it once was—why keep it?

Some will argue the Blaine Amendment protects taxpayers. But these Supreme Court decisions already draw the proper line: government cannot establish religion, and government also cannot punish citizens because they are religious.

Idaho’s Blaine language does not provide clarity. It creates a legal gray zone where lawmakers and agencies are constantly guessing: What is allowed? What will be challenged? What will be struck down?

And it becomes a convenient excuse to shut down debate with a slogan: “The Constitution won’t allow it.” Increasingly, that claim is false.

Idaho should want constitutional clarity—not constitutional clutter.

Rep. Price’s proposal matters because it recognizes the right solution: you don’t fix a constitutional problem with a press release. You fix it with a constitutional amendment.

And Idaho’s amendment process is deliberately high-trust and public: it requires broad legislative agreement and then approval by voters statewide. That’s exactly as it should be.

Idaho voters deserve the opportunity to remove discriminatory, outdated language from our state’s foundational document.

Idaho’s Blaine Amendment is discriminatory in principle and increasingly obsolete in practice.

No constitution should treat citizens unequally based on religious identity. And no state should preserve language born from religious hostility simply because it’s been there for a long time.

Rep. Elaine Price’s constitutional amendment is the right step forward. Idaho should remove the Blaine Amendment, restore equal treatment, and bring our Constitution back into alignment with the freedoms it is supposed to protect.