Policymakers, start your engines. Important legislative sessions are starting next week in Idaho and Washington. A short budget session will also kick off in February in Wyoming. There is no legislative session this year in Montana. At the top of the agenda for all the states will be the budgets. Many other important policies will also be considered by lawmakers. To help frame the debate, Mountain States Policy Center will be releasing our new Idaho and Washington polls. The Idaho Poll will be featured at an exclusive policy briefing  at the state capitol in Boise on January 12. The release of the Washington Poll will be live-streamed on January 13. We have dozens of policy recommendations for lawmakers to consider. These reforms can be acted on even with the challenging budget situations across the states. Here are a couple of our top recommendations for Idaho, Washington and Wyoming lawmakers: Amend the state constitution to require a supermajority legislative vote or voter approval for tax increases ; Adopt property tax transparency with Truth in Taxation ; Require public notice of at least 72 hours before any legislative hearing  and require all legislative committees permit remote testimony (Idaho); Avoid adoption of any income tax  (Washington/Wyoming); Avoid a vehicle miles traveled  (VMT) tax; Adopt the Public School Transparency Act ; Support efforts to require a federal balanced budget amendment ; Adopt pro-market housing reforms ; Adopt a free-market legislative framework for short-term rentals to protect property rights and expand housing opportunities; Adopt portable benefits reform  for the self-employed; Support local control of public lands  to decrease federal mismanagement; Tie transportation spending  to performance measures; and Adopt Truth in Labeling  for gas taxes. Our policy recommendations are based on a core set of principles: Government should be limited and focused on core functions; Where there is competition and freedom of choice, outcomes improve; Private property rights are essential to a free society; The price of goods and services should be determined by supply and demand; Policymakers should focus on incentives rather than coercion; Regulations should be practical, predictable and limited; and Freedom of speech and the marketplace of ideas should never be curtailed. As for our role during the coming legislative sessions, there are certain things we will (and won't) do: We will work to empower individuals and businesses to succeed through non-partisan, quality research that promotes free enterprise, individual liberty and limited government; We won't pressure lawmakers or call people names; We will produce ideas and analysis that inform the debate - and let those ideas do the talking; We won't attend a public hearing unless invited by lawmakers to offer testimony; We will review various proposals and legislation, offering analysis; and We won't grade bills or any lawmaker. The full list of our legislative priorities for the 2026 Legislative Sessions in Idaho, Washington and Wyoming is below. Additional details on these recommendations (and many more) are available in our Policy Manual . Our policy experts look forward to working with lawmakers across the region to help advance these policy reforms during the 2026 Legislative Sessions.

For most families, owning a hotel is a fantasy. But owning a single rental property is the ground floor of a bigger dream—a way to fund college tuition or seed a future business through sweat equity and a spare key. For those who can't afford the overhead of a traditional business, short-term rentals (STRs) are one of the most accessible paths to move beyond a paycheck-to-paycheck existence. Beyond providing a platform for growth, these rentals serve as a critical safety net for many owners. According to Airbnb, 43 percent of hosts  use their earnings to stay in their homes, while 11 percent say the income helped them avoid eviction or foreclosure. Yet, as cities move to ban or cap STRs, they are not just limiting tourism; they are criminalizing the small-scale ambition that allows ordinary people to build financial independence. STRs have become a useful villain for politicians seeking a scapegoat for the lack of affordable housing. In city council chambers across the country, the narrative is identical: ban short-term rentals and housing affordability will follow. It’s a comforting story for a frustrated public. It’s also wrong. In our upcoming study, Short Term Rental Regulations: Principles, Pitfalls, and Practical Reforms , we examine the consequences of turning our backs on the first principles of property ownership. A presumption in favor of peaceful property use is not a mere policy preference; it is the starting point of legitimate governance in a free society. When we abandon this—forgetting that a home is a private asset rather than a tool of the state—we create a vacuum filled by elitism and administrative whim. STR bans act as a significant barrier to housing market entry, effectively shrinking the buyer pool to high-net-worth individuals. Before a ban, a middle-income family could sometimes afford a mountain or lake house by offsetting the mortgage with rental income. When that business model is outlawed, the buyer disappears and the ladder to wealth-building is kicked away. The data consistently proves that STR crackdowns fail to solve the structural housing shortages they purport to fix. In New York City, a near-total ban  eliminated 90 percent of available listings, yet citywide rents continued climbing to record highs—reaching nearly $4,700 for a one-bedroom apartment while vacancy rates remained at a critical 1 percent. If anything, affordability worsened. The ban also had the unintended consequence of shifting tourism dollars away from local businesses in dispersed neighborhoods, instead funneling revenue toward centralized hotel chains. An analysis  by Charles River Associates found that NYC’s restrictions resulted in $638 million in lost guest spending, while hotels benefited from a nearly 15 percent boost in nightly rates. This isn't just an American phenomenon. A 2024 Ernst & Young review  in the U.K. found that over 95 percent of housing cost increases are driven by broad economic factors and supply constraints, with STRs accounting for mere pennies on the dollar. Similarly, when Los Angeles County  slashed its listings by half, home prices fell by a negligible two percent. While politicians fixate on STRs, they ignore the staggering cost burden of their own bureaucracy. A 2021 study  by the National Association of Home Builders found that government regulation accounts for 23.8 percent of the final price of a new single-family home—a hidden tax averaging nearly $94,000 per house. Restrictive zoning and regulatory overreach have made it nearly impossible to build enough homes to meet demand. Short-term rentals represent a fraction of the housing stock, yet they receive most of the blame. It is much easier to ban a vacation rental and claim victory than it is to unwind decades of spectacular housing policy failures.   None of this is an argument for "regulatory anarchy." Local governments have a clear role in managing noise, safety, and trash. But as our research outlines, the solution is targeted enforcement and market-based solutions, not blanket prohibition. A serious policy framework begins with a presumption in favor of property rights. It rejects arbitrary caps that create artificial scarcity and instead focuses on clear, standardized rules that address actual harm rather than speculative fear. To that end, states should adopt narrowly-tailored, uniform rules focused on essential protections—accurate tax remittance and objective safety standards—while prohibiting municipalities from using STR bans or licensing regimes as indiscriminate substitutes for enforcing existing nuisance laws. History is rarely kind to policies that treat property rights as expendable. Housing affordability will not be achieved by suffocating peaceful uses of private property, but by expanding supply and allowing markets to respond to demand. A disciplined, property rights-centered STR framework helps move policy back toward that goal—strengthening opportunity for homeowners and keeping government aligned with its proper role in a free society.

Effective teachers are the single most important in-school factor affecting student success, yet most public school pay systems fail to recognize or reward instructional quality. The majority of school districts compensate public school teachers through salary schedules negotiated during collective bargaining. These schedules are based almost entirely on years of service and academic credits earned, with little to no consideration of classroom effectiveness or student outcomes. While this approach is simple and inexpensive to administer, it does little to incentivize excellence or distinguish high-performing teachers from mediocre or even “ineffective” teachers. Across our region, teacher compensation funding formulas, funding sources, and annual salaries vary widely. Washington ranks among the highest nationally for adjusted teacher pay. Montana, on the other hand, has historically ranked near the bottom, although recent legislation has improved starting pay. Specifically, the STARS Act  raised minimum salaries and implemented a statewide base pay benchmark above $41,000 for 2025. Wyoming has expressed support for performance-based pay, but implementation differs by district, and the state continues to struggle with teacher recruitment and retention. Under the education and experience-based pay models that these states use, scheduled raises are virtually guaranteed regardless of competency or classroom management. This system rewards longevity rather than impact and discourages innovation, accountability, and continuous improvement. Idaho is one of 10 states (11 if you count Washington, D.C.) that incorporate performance into teacher pay through its tiered career ladder. Pay increases are linked to performance, requiring educators to meet measurable student achievement targets, along with professional growth benchmarks, to advance between compensation levels. Policymakers developed the system with good intentions, but it is administratively complex and lacking in statewide consistency. After multiple reviews of the manual, I still found it difficult to understand. Actual teacher salaries vary widely among districts, with some awarding individual bonuses and others distributing award funds equally across the career ladder. However, research supports Idaho’s approach in using multiple metrics to gauge teacher performance. A 2021 study published in the American Educational Research Journal  examined 37 student improvement initiatives and found that programs incorporating pay-for-performance significantly improved student outcomes, particularly standardized test scores. The Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) model, which debuted in 1999, is a specific performance-based initiative widely used in at least twenty states throughout the U.S. A 2023 study from the National Bureau of Economic Statistics  tracked South Carolina 8th grade students of TAP schools beyond age 21 using various government databases. Researchers found benefits for students that extended beyond immediate gains in standardized test scores. Students from TAP schools were more likely than peers in similar non-performance-pay schools to complete high school, less likely to be arrested on felony charges, and less likely to rely on welfare programs. This is not to say that paying teachers for performance will fix the education system, but there should be more legislative intent related to strategic compensation reform, including merit pay to address recruitment challenges. Low starting salaries compound the problem by shrinking the applicant pool and discouraging high-quality candidates from entering the profession. Yes, performance pay triggers the union machine, especially in Washington. Union leaders frequently threaten lawsuits, claiming such models are unfair, undermine collective solidarity, and create hostility among teachers. And critics chime in to argue that merit pay systems are difficult to design, costly to administer, and potentially divisive. But these concerns underscore the importance of thoughtful design rather than abandonment of reform. Policymakers can design these systems without excessive complexity. For example, Arkansas’ LEARNS Merit Teacher Incentive Fund , created in 2023, initially raised the state’s minimum starting salary to $50,000 and provided a minimum $2,000 raise for all teachers. Going forward, it provides no automatic salary increases but instead allocates bonuses of up to $10,000 per year for classroom teachers, library or media specialists, and counselors. The size of individual bonuses varies based on whether a teacher demonstrates high student growth over several years, mentors other teachers, and/or teaches in subjects, regions, or student populations experiencing critical shortages. In the 2024–2025 school year, more than 4,200 educators earned the bonus.   Successful programs are easy to understand and share important characteristics like reliable funding and a commitment to continuous improvement. They receive broad support from teachers, administrators, and the community. Expectations and rewards are transparent, attainable, and clearly aligned with student achievement. Districts must provide teachers with the tools and support necessary for success, and districts follow through with rewards and consequences. Pay-for-performance models reflect free-market principles and acknowledge excellence. Teachers matter, and paying a premium for effective teaching attracts stronger candidates, retains high performers, and motivates underperforming teachers to improve or exit the profession. Teacher compensation should move beyond outdated salary schedules and begin rewarding what matters most: results for students.

In an expected, but expedited fashion, AI isn’t being treated like a special skill anymore. It’s turning into a new baseline tech tool like spreadsheets, email, or Google. Employers don’t always say it during the application process, but the job market is calling for applicants to learn to work with AI or be competing against someone who can. That’s why the new “ Presidential AI Challenge ”  matters. This program is built around the simple idea that all students and educators can use AI to solve real problems in their own communities, and in the process, build the exact kind of competence the modern workforce is already rewarding. This effort is designed to inspire K–12 students and educators to create AI-based solutions to community challenges and build practical AI interest and competency. When people ask, “Is AI really that big of a deal?” the most honest answer is to open your eyes and look around you. It is everywhere, and even the most technologically challenged individual has tapped into this new reality. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has repeatedly highlighted  AI-driven demand in computing and data fields, including strong growth projections for “data scientists” and “computer research” roles tied directly to AI and data analysis. Global employer surveys also point to  “ Technology-related roles are the fastest- growing jobs in percentage terms, including Big Data Specialists, Fintech Engineers, AI…”   The Presidential AI Challenge   invites K–12 students and educators to study, develop, or apply AI methods/tools to address community challenges, with separate participation tracks and categories. There are four participation categories: Elementary (K–5):  groups/classrooms led by an educator or community leader (with age-appropriate supervision); Middle School (6–8):  teams of 1–4 students plus a supervising adult; High School (9–12):  teams of 1–4 students plus a supervising adult; and Educators:  teams of 1–3 educators (including homeschool educators who can provide qualifying documentation). What can participants get out of the program, aside from directly applicable experience that employers and the market are looking for? All compliant submissions receive a Presidential Certificate of Participation. Teams that opt into the competition can earn additional recognition, plus resources like cloud credits and other items provided by supporting organizations. National champions can receive $10,000 awards on top of certificates and resources. Even if a team never wins a prize, the skills built are exactly what the market rewards . That’s the difference between “someone who played with AI” and “someone who can implement AI.” If you’re a student, this is your chance to do something that looks like the future, because the reality is it is the future. If you’re an educator or community leader, you don’t have to be a software engineer to lead a team. You just need to help students pick a real problem, follow the project structure, and submit something compliant. The market is calling for more AI implementation across every sector, and those that excel won’t be in places that fear change. That’s why this effort is so timely and helps students and educators become builders, not just spectators, in the next wave of economic growth.

On December 8, 2025, a Lewis and Clark County judge ordered the Montana Office of Public Instruction to stop administering the Students with Special Needs Education Savings Account (ESA) Program, which allows parents of eligible students with disabilities to receive funds for approved educational expenses. The state was ordered to pause the program based on a technicality. Insufficient appropriation language left the program without a funding mechanism, and as such, the program was deemed unconstitutional. Families of special needs students participating in the program were faced with the uncertainty of entering the new year without an education plan. Families relying on ESA funds to secure tuition, therapies, or curriculum were faced with potential disruptions to education placements. Motions filed by the State of Montana, however, resulted in the judge postponing the effect of his decision and allowing the ESA program to continue through the remainder of the 2025-2026 school year. This stay was issued on December 17, 2025. Of the stay ruling, Montana Superintendent of Public Instruction Susie Hedalen said, “The stay provides important stability and continuity for participating families and ensures that students, particularly those with special education needs, can continue receiving the educational services that best meet their individual needs without disruption.” However, this legal challenge is far from over. While state officials were celebrating the blanket stay, attorneys representing Disability Rights Montana and Montana Quality Education Coalition, the plaintiffs in the case, were busy filing arguments against it. Briefs filed by the plaintiffs argue that the stay was prematurely issued and too broad. They favor halting the program and paying only agreed-upon outstanding reimbursements. There is no justification for the harm that action would cause the families currently in the ESA program. The Montana Quality Education Coalition should remember that a quality education isn’t necessarily a public-school education. There is no justification for neglecting the rights of special education students who are thriving in their non-public school setting. The legal challenges are not over, and the state has indicated it intends to appeal the original court decision regarding the funding issue. A judicial stay creates an urgent need for convening a special session to cure the appropriation defect.

In 2030, Montanans will decide whether to hold a new state constitutional convention. This column is the fourth in a series designed to provoke discussion in advance of this important decision. Previous columns examined the poor drafting of the constitution’s university and environmental provisions . Poorly drafted constitutional language encourages lawyers and judges to “interpret” it in ways that take power away from the people and their elected representatives.   This column outlines a few of the many defects in the document’s provisions governing K-12 public education. They appear in Article X.   Article X, Section 6 bans aid to “sectarian” institutions. The term “sectarian” traditionally is a code word  mandating religious discrimination . At the 1972 convention, the delegates were warned not to insert it. But they did so anyway, and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled  that Section 6 violates the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. So that section is now a nullity.   Article X, Section 1(1) states: “It is the goal of the people to establish a system of education which will develop the full educational potential of each person. Equality of educational opportunity is guaranteed to each person of the state.”   That sounds great—until you realize that the two sentences conflict with each other. “Equality of opportunity” might be fine for many students. But it takes more to meet the “full educational potential” of a gifted or special-needs student. For example, the only way to meet the “full educational potential” of many students is to adopt a school choice program that includes both public and private providers.   Another problem is measuring “equality of opportunity.” The Montana Supreme Court has focused on  equality of funding. But in the real world, funding levels are relatively unimportant to educational quality. Despite denial from special interests , a massive amount of empirical evidence—including from liberal researchers —shows that beyond a certain level spent everywhere, funding doesn’t correlate much with educational quality. A recent Mountain States Policy Center study reached the same conclusion.   Non-funding factors, such as leadership quality, goals, and teaching methods, are far more important.   Article X, Section 1(2) says, “The legislature shall provide a basic system of free quality public elementary and secondary schools.” This sentence invites a host of questions: What does “basic” mean? What does “quality” mean? Presumably, it means good rather than bad quality. But how much good quality is constitutionally sufficient?   The courts have no way of objectively enforcing language like this, so it simply does not belong in a constitution. It would be sufficient to require the legislature to provide for educational opportunity and give it the power to do so.   Still another problem in Article X is that it creates three kinds of entities to oversee public schools, but it is unclear which does what. Section 8 reads, “The supervision and control of schools in each school district shall be vested in a board of trustees . . . ” Does that give school trustees power to overrule legislative decisions in the same way as the state supreme court has given the regents  power to overrule legislative decisions for state university campuses? The constitution doesn’t say.   But the constitution does include Section 9(1), which partly contradicts Section 8. It assigns the state board of education responsibility for long-range planning and for coordinating and evaluating school policies and programs. As if that weren’t enough, Section 9(3) gives the state board of public  education “general supervision over the public school system.”   What a mess!   Because of restrictions the Montana Supreme Court has placed on the amendment process, only a new convention can propose a way out of this chaos.

Idaho’s budget gap deserves a serious conversation. What it does not deserve is to be turned into a political weapon. Yet that’s exactly what’s happening. Longtime opponents of education choice are now claiming that Idaho’s education choice law is responsible for the state’s fiscal challenges. That claim may be convenient, but it is not grounded in facts — and it’s irresponsible to suggest otherwise. The education choice program totals about $50 million, representing roughly 0.90% of Idaho’s overall budget. Public schools, by contrast, receive about $2.8 billion in state funding, and no one is proposing to cut that budget. Those numbers matter. A program that accounts for less than one percent of state spending cannot plausibly be blamed for a statewide budget gap. Suggesting it can ignores basic math and misleads the public about how state finances actually work. What’s missing from this narrative is the broader context: Idaho is not alone. States across the country are grappling with similar budget pressures, largely due to recent federal tax law changes and the complex question of whether — and how — to conform to them at the state level. Changes to the federal tax base can significantly affect state revenues, even before lawmakers take a single new policy action of their own. In other words, Idaho’s budget gap is part of a national trend, not the result of a single, small education policy passed this year. In many ways, Idaho's budget is looked upon as a model. If the context were acknowledged, the argument against education choice would collapse. Instead, critics have chosen to single out a modest, capped program they already opposed. If this standard were applied consistently, any problem facing Idaho could be blamed on education choice. If revenue forecasts miss the mark, it’s school choice. If inflation rises, it’s school choice. If it rains in Idaho, critics might blame education choice. That’s not analysis. It’s scapegoating. What makes this especially clear is that many of the same voices making these claims opposed education choice long before the budget gap existed — including during years when Idaho ran historic surpluses and increased education spending. The policy didn’t suddenly become objectionable because of fiscal conditions; the budget gap simply became a new excuse. That approach isn’t just misleading — it’s a slap in the face to parents. Families who use education choice are not responsible for Idaho’s budget challenges. They are parents trying to do what every parent does: find the best educational fit for their children. Blaming them for a complex fiscal situation driven by national tax policy shifts and revenue volatility is unfair and wrong. If lawmakers and advocates want to address the budget gap, they should focus on the real drivers. They could tackle federal tax law changes, Medicaid, post-surplus revenue normalization, and broader policy decisions that can have far greater fiscal impact than a small, capped education choice program. Idaho can debate education policy honestly. But we should not pretend that taking a $50 million program away from families will fix our challenges. That claim doesn’t hold up — and making it undermines the serious discussion Idahoans deserve.

A recent social media post from a news organization in Spokane celebrated Washington’s new $17.13 minimum wage as “good news for families,” boasting it’s the highest state rate in the country. But good headlines don’t make good policy — especially when the real effects rip through the labor market and everyday life. Yes, on January 1, Washington mandated a 2.8% increase to $17.13 per hour. That’s more than double the federal minimum of $7.25, which hasn’t budged in over a decade. But let’s not kid ourselves: mandating higher pay does not create value out of thin air. It forces businesses — especially small ones — to shoulder steep labor costs. And when costs go up, businesses react by changing how and where they hire. One group that gets hit hardest? Young workers, who rely on entry-level jobs to gain experience. Look at the data: in Washington and other high-wage states, the unemployment rate for teens is notably higher than the national average. Recent figures show Washington’s teen unemployment rate has hovered around 14.8% , which is well above what millions of Americans experience overall — and worse than states with lower wage floors. Meanwhile, national youth unemployment statistics show that even before policy shifts, young joblessness is elevated: roughly 10.8% of U.S. youth were unemployed in July 2025. When you already have a structural challenge getting teens and young adults into the workforce, piling on higher hiring costs makes that problem even worse. Here’s the painful reality policymakers and cheerleaders often ignore: A mandatory wage floor doesn’t distinguish between someone with 10 years of experience and someone with no experience at all . Employers facing rising labor costs don’t say, “I’ll pay more but hire the same number of entry-level workers.” They say: “I’ll cut hours, require more experience, automate tasks, or simply hire fewer people.” That’s not speculation — it’s basic market behavior. And it’s exactly why young people and other at-risk workers are most vulnerable when minimum wages are pushed ever higher without regard for local job markets and living costs. It’s particularly absurd to celebrate wage hikes without asking basic questions like: Will this actually help families who struggle with childcare costs, housing, groceries, and utilities? Many low-income households earn above the minimum wage already. Meanwhile, families on fixed incomes will pay more as businesses pass labor costs onto consumers. And for small business owners — the folks who are woven into the fabric of our communities — this isn’t abstract theory. It’s real life. They’re the ones deciding whether to keep a second location open, give workers more hours, or cut staffing altogether. Minimum wage mandates don’t make them reckless; they make them cautious — rationally so. Arguing that higher wages are “good news” without acknowledging these predictable consequences is not just careless — it’s disingenuous. It treats economic policy like a slogan, not a system with winners and losers. If we truly want to help families and future workers, policymakers should focus on expanding opportunity, not erecting barriers. Lowering the cost of essentials, investing in job training and apprenticeships, and encouraging pathways to higher-paying careers — those are the solutions that actually grow prosperity. Washington’s minimum wage hike might look great on a sign or a social media post — but for many young workers, families paying rising prices, and struggling small businesses, it’s bad news dressed up as good public relations.

In today’s housing market, ‘to each, their own’ is rarely used to describe current homebuyers. The more typical homebuying experience is ‘you get what you get and you don’t throw a fit.’ For many in the mountain states, a tantrum is happening because there are few attainable homes ‘to get’. Mountain States Policy Center recently looked into the cost of building and buying homes in the region and how to improve housing supply ( here is our new study ).   Read the full study here Housing affordability and availability are major concerns in the Mountain West. Housing choices across the region have restricted and the area is one of the most unattainable  in the nation. From 2018 to 2023, Idaho and Montana saw the largest home price  increases in the nation at 74% and 72%, respectively. These higher costs leave many homebuyers in a lurch between high rental costs and growing down payment requirements.   What do the local and state governments do in this housing crisis? The answer is not a government solution but a market solution. Government track records in the area of housing affordability are very poor. Many of the so-called government fixes, like rent control, make housing more unaffordable.   Just look at nearby Washington. It is one of the most unattainable places to build or buy a home in the region and has held that position for many years, especially around the Seattle-metro area. All levels of Washington government have created ‘fixes’ to the development problems facing the state. Limiting unwanted urban sprawl by severe growth management laws, protecting single-family residential zones from higher density housing, and pushing rent control and subsidized housing policies, to name a few.   The result. Home costs just climbed higher. Why? Because not one of these solutions fixed the basic economic tenets of supply. If home supply goes up, prices go down. A variety of policies tailored to local needs must aim for more housing, not government band-aids on a supply issue.   Idaho, Montana, and Utah have always been more affordable than neighboring Washington, but in the last four years, this has shifted as new residents flock to these states. These states are unaffordable because demand has increased, but supply has not grown by the same magnitude.   The Mountain West region is one of few areas where it is cheaper to build a home rather than to buy a home, primarily in the more rural areas. Lower land costs and fewer regulations, make it cheaper for homebuyers to build rather than buy a typical single-family home. But this trend disappears in more urban neighborhoods because there are typically more regulations, development costs, and a tighter supply of construction labor. These are self-inflicted consequences of local government choices.   How will the mountain states solve the housing crisis? The solution is allowing the market to supply houses.   There is a ‘swarm’ of small construction entrepreneurs available to create a better supply of homes in this region, but our policies need to be encouraging to these businesses. A few policy positions that improve housing supply include limiting building permit delays and complexity, encouraging light touch density development in highly demanded zones, not endangering property rights with growth management policies , avoiding excessive building mandates , and prohibiting artificial market manipulations like rent control  and subsidies .   The housing attainability crisis our region faces is not going to be fixed through government solutions and funding. The attainability crisis is an availability crisis and our local policies need to improve housing supply with the market, not the government. Improved housing supply will grant homebuyers more attainable choices. Our region will be better off when it is easier to say of the choices we make as homebuyers, “to each, their own,” rather than ‘you get what you get.’ Note: This topic will be the focus of our Peak Policy update on March 1 at 12 p.m. MST. You can watch it live here on YouTube .

Through social media, online platforms, and ever-present digital devices, parents today are up against a tidal wave of risks that can harm their children. There are so many dangers in the technology world, including cyberbullying, “harmful materials,” as well as the known addictive nature of social media. Make no mistake, online apps can be amazing tools, resources, and opportunities for every generation to pioneer the next technological advancement, but dangers are around every terabyte of data. Empowering parents with the right tools and resources to navigate this complex environment is key to garnering the benefits while mitigating the risks. Digital parenting tools matter more than just monitoring and tracking your child’s internet use, which can be difficult even under the best circumstances, especially when you take into account multiple children and multiple accounts. There can also be a technological learning curve of teaching and equipping parents to make decisions that maintain their family's beliefs and safety standards. Every type of device raises different safety concerns and needs specific measures. State mandates are coming in fast and furious, and state social media regulations are accumulating to address real concerns associated with social media use. For example, age verification laws have had a tricky time passing constitutional muster and have been blocked by the courts in California, Utah, Arkansas, Ohio, and Mississippi. While there is a need to protect children online, there is also an important balance to ensure we do not weaken constitutional rights. There are legitimate questions as to whether it is the government’s job to police the internet or social media.   In Arkansas, U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Brooks found the proposed law was an unacceptable affront to free speech,  saying  that the “loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for minimal periods of time, constitute[s] irreparable injury," and that there was “no compelling evidence” that children would be protected by the legislation. A judge in California took the state to task for claiming their speech regulation bill would somehow improve children’s privacy. Judge Beth Labson Freeman  said  that age verification mandates are “likely to exacerbate the problem by inducing…children to divulge additional personal information.” Every time these bills have been challenged, they have failed to withstand even basic constitutional scrutiny. Alternatively, a market-based approach that rewards competition and relies on consumer responses could be the right solution. Not only does this make the development of digital parenting solutions more efficient, but it also helps to keep them relevant and user-friendly. It is important to note that the social media tools available to parents are endless. Our new study ( Parental guide to understanding digital media protection resources ) examines these different options for parents. Various tools will cater to a range of needs, from location tracking to content management, providing parents with the resources necessary to foster a safe and balanced digital space for their children. Read the full study here. The choice of tool often depends on specific family needs, whether it's detailed insight into online behavior, extensive content filtering, or simple time management. By combining each of the strengths of these applications, parents can tailor a digital parenting strategy that is both effective and economical, ensuring their children's experiences are positive and protected. Innovation drives the tech market, and developers are continually fighting for consumer attention and market share. The market approach incentivizes “parental control tool developers” to find increasingly innovative and effective ways to differentiate their products as competition continues to mount. This creates a cycle of regular updates that not only improve existing features but also add new ones to handle future digital risks and parental worries. When new forms of online communication develop, those developers could build in ways to monitor them, ensuring that parents have the tools they need to safeguard their children against new threats, such as cyberbullying, on the next round of social media platforms. The rapid change of technology requires equally quick responses, something a market-driven approach is uniquely capable of delivering and can never come from government overseers. If we know anything from family experiences, a single solution does not work across the board for the different needs and values of each family member. The market-based approach offers a range of tools that suit different parenting styles and worries. Depending on what parents want, they can find the tools that best fit those needs, ranging from the least, to the most intrusive monitoring tools, or something that stands more towards teaching digital literacy. For example, some families may want something with more location tracking and geofencing features, while others may want better web filtering. If you look at the market, there are specific apps that focus on one aspect of control, or you can get suites that provide a wider selection of applications. Competition can help make parental control tools more affordable and accessible to a wider variety of families. The availability of free versions and starter plans permits some degree of parental control without necessarily spending money, so that families can get basic features and upgrade them, as needs and income change. This tiered approach creates the best route for parents in making their access much easier for their families, as well as creating pressure on companies as the average price point and clear value proposition per family. There is no silver bullet when it comes to completely securing a child's digital experience; a combination of market-driven solutions and engaged parenting is key to managing the challenges posed by the digital world. Ultimately, creating an environment of trust and open dialogue about digital use is crucial for helping children navigate online spaces safely and responsibly. As digital technologies continue to evolve, we must also evolve our strategies for managing and protecting our children's online engagement with these tools.

As we prepare for the start of the 2026 Legislative Session in a few weeks in Idaho, Washington and Wyoming (there’s no legislative session next year in Montana), it’s a good time to look back and reflect on the many exciting things that occurred in 2025. Here are just a few that stand out: Several of our recommendations were enacted during the 2025 Legislative Sessions across the region, including: “Record tax relief” in Idaho and Montana , reforming the ballot fiscal impact statement process in Idaho, requiring reasonable Medicaid work requirements in the region, and expanding options for students and families in Idaho with enhanced education choice opportunities by adopting an education choice tax credit (HB 93).    MSPC research was referenced on the national Sean Hannity show  concerning education spending and results, and we were quoted multiple times in the Wall Street Journal on tax policy .   During his acceptance video for the MSPC Elevation Award  in November, Montana Governor Gianforte provided this endorsement of our work: “Since taking office, the Mountain States Policy Center has been an incredible resource to me and my staff and a loyal and honest advocate of the work we're doing here in Montana." We launched our Idaho Kids Win campaign  to help parents learn more about the new HB 93 parental choice tax credit. Along with a resource website, several town halls were held across Idaho to answer parents' questions. On November 14, the Idaho Supreme Court accepted our amicus brief defending the HB 93 Parental Choice Tax Credit . Our brief provides the court with national case law analysis demonstrating that HB 93 is a constitutionally sound program that serves a legitimate public purpose benefitting Idahoans. We demonstrated to the court that there is currently no enforceable state supreme court ruling in the United States holding a school choice tax credit as unconstitutional. Instead, court after court, across the country, has allowed families to benefit from education choice tax credits. The legislature’s separate brief also cited MSPC research as an authority.  We released the nation's first Public School Transparency Index . This important tool allows citizens, taxpayers, and elected officials the opportunity to compare and contrast key budget data from school districts in Idaho.   MSPC’s Sebastian Griffin was invited by the Idaho Department of Education to be a keynote speaker at the department’s 10th Annual Family and Community Engagement Conference in Sun Valley in October. The keynote addressed Sebastian’s study , “The Parental Guide to Digital Media Safety Resources.” The presentation focused on using voluntary parental tools as market-driven solutions, encouraging innovation, competition, and consumer options. Sebastian noted that efforts by the government to regulate social media, or force one-size-fits-all digital rules on society, only too often encounter constitutional questions and don’t create the intended outcomes.   We released the first edition of the MSPC “Fact Book.”  This handheld booklet contains over 60 datapoints benchmarking Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming against each other and nationally in terms of taxes, spending, transportation, economic output, crime, housing, and education indicators.   We published studies on education spending and results , reforming Wyoming's property tax , regulatory reforms , transportation taxes and spending , Medicaid reforms , debanking , Montana tax reforms , open enrollment for schools , emergency powers reform , and government IT projects .   MSPC’s policy expertise grew as we hired Meg Goudy as our new Education Director  and Rob Natelson as Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence . Our op-eds were published more than 600 times across the region. None of this would have been possible without your generous support. We are already working to provide lawmakers with new recommendations to consider next year to help improve taxpayer protections, government transparency, regulatory relief, housing affordability, and more. Additional details will be available soon on these proposals.

The successful plaintiffs in the Held v. Montana climate-change lawsuit are suing again —although it appears  they will have to begin with a district judge rather than proceeding directly to the state supreme court. They claim three new state laws violate the state constitution’s “right to a clean and healthful environment.”   Are they correct? The constitution’s text is too poorly written for us to know.   This is the third column explaining why Montanans should vote for a new state constitutional convention in 2030. The first explained the convention procedure and summarized some of the constitution’s problems. The second focused on the document’s confused treatment of state university governance. This column addresses the bill of rights, particularly the environmental provisions.   The Montana Bill of Rights   Good practice is for constitution-writers to use language that is either clear on its face or clarified by history or pre-existing law. When drafting the bill of rights, the 1972 constitutional convention sometimes did so, as when it included rights to property, free speech, and freedom of religion.   But on other occasions, the delegates became overly creative—and that caused them to run into trouble. For example, they invented a right “of pursuing life’s basic necessities.” They did not fully explain it, and no legal sources explain it either. The unresolved questions about this “right” are endless. For example, is a car a “basic necessity” in rural Montana? Is it a “basic necessity” in Missoula, where mass transit is available?   Similar questions plague the “right to a clean and healthful environment.” Among those questions are “How clean?” “How healthful?” How do you measure cleanliness and health? Who measures them? And so forth.   Forced Labor?   In another provision, the constitution mandates that “each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana.” Does this mean that each person must spend time cleaning roadsides, restoring wetlands, or changing pollution filters? Probably not: that kind of unpaid forced labor sounds a lot like the hated corvée system imposed in France during the 18 th  century. It was one of several causes of the French Revolution.   But if this provision means something else, then what does it mean?   Conflicts   Some of the state constitution’s listed rights conflict with others. If a car is a “basic necessity” but driving one degrades the environment, you have a conflict between the basic necessity and environmental rights.   The right to property surely includes the right to develop it. But doesn’t development usually degrade the environment?   If, as some people seem to think, the environment always wins, then why? The constitution doesn’t privilege some rights over others. It treats them all equally.   There is also the uncomfortable fact that exercise of a right may improve and degrade “cleanliness” and “health” at the same time. Construction of a new factory may increase pollution, but it also may make Montanans more prosperous, and there is evidence that, in the long run, prosperity promotes both the environment and public health .   How the Constitution Was Represented   During the 1972 public debates over the constitution, opponents raised some of these issues. To reassure the voters, advocates told them  that only the legislature, not the courts, would define the environmental rights. But after the vote, the Montana Supreme Court ignored those assurances and exploited the constitution’s vagueness to impose its own environmental policies. That sort of judicial presumption was behind the plaintiffs’ victory in the Held  case.   But in a democratic republic, policy is made by the people and their representatives, not by the courts. Restoring democratic and republican values to Montana is another reason the state needs a new constitution.

You don’t need to tell Americans that health care costs are out of control. This includes the prices for prescription drugs. Thankfully, there is a bipartisan proposal in Congress to address these costs led by Idaho Senator Mike Crapo. From the newsroom of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee : “ U.S. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho., and Ranking Member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., recently introduced the Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) Price Transparency and Accountability Act to fix market distortions and increase transparency in federal prescription drug programs to lower patient costs at the pharmacy counter.” This is a bipartisan attempt to bring down the costs of prescription medications for patients in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. As background, manufacturers do not set the final price of their drugs. Pharmaceutical pricing goes through a series of steps before drugs actually reach patients. Depending on whether people buy their prescription drugs directly from a pharmacy or through their insurance, several transactions and multiple layers of profit are built into the system. In general, manufacturers sell to wholesalers who then sell to pharmacies. Most, if not all, insurance companies use pharmacy benefit managers to negotiate the best pricing from manufacturers. Drug wholesalers and PBMs provide a service, but this comes at an added cost to the consumer. Wholesalers and PBMs will argue that they obtain better prices from manufacturers, but these contracts and the supposed benefits are not transparent. Actual contract pricing and rebates are usually closely guarded and not readily available to the public. What is known is that PBM companies, in general, have higher profit margins than drug manufacturers. Drug wholesalers and pharmaceutical benefit managers may have a role in the drug market, but only if they add value for patients. Their contracts and pricing should be transparent , so consumers can decide the amount of value added. According to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee's press release, the PBM Price Transparency and Accountability Act would: "Delink PBM compensation from their negotiated rebates to disincentivize PBMs from promoting higher-priced medications; Increase PBM reporting requirements to Medicare Part D plan sponsors and to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and empower Part D plan sponsors to audit their PBM for compliance with contract requirements; Reinforce existing requirements that plan sponsors contract with any willing pharmacy that meets their standard contract terms and conditions to better protect independent pharmacies in rural areas from practices that have contributed to widespread closures; Require participation by retail community pharmacies in the National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC) survey, which would ensure accurate Medicaid payments to pharmacies; and Mandate PBMs pass Medicaid payments directly to pharmacies to ensure transparent drug costs for states and taxpayers.” The lack of price knowledge in our health care system is a fundamental problem for patients who want to make informed medical decisions. The Senate Finance Committee is to be congratulated for attempting to make PBMs responsible for holding down pharmaceutical costs. Hopefully, the full Senate will take up the legislation in a timely fashion.

Public dollars should always be spent wisely and efficiently, especially on infrastructure that touches nearly every home, school, and business. That's why Montana Governor Greg Gianforte is happy to see President Trump's move to slash red tape in the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. In June, Governor Gianforte praised the new federal guidelines that eliminate “needless obstacles” that the previous administration had put in place. This policy shift makes it easier for Montana to use its $629 million in BEAD funds more efficiently and effectively, particularly in the state’s unserved and underserved areas. Congress established the BEAD program in 2021 , marking it as the biggest broadband investment in the history of the United States. It was supposed to offer states the resources and tools they need to close the digital divide. However, for many states, the path was stifled by federal regulations that often limited flexibility and proved an obstacle to controlling costs. In Montana, that has translated to longer timelines, higher prices, and fewer local solutions. That’s changing now. Montana and other states are no longer required to favor only one type of broadband technology, whether it be fiber, cellular, or wireless, under new “Benefit of the Bargain” guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Rather, they are directed to explore all alternative technologies, such as wireless, satellite, and fixed-wireline technology. This tech-neutral approach allows states to concentrate on outcomes. As Governor Gianforte observed, with this reform, “... the Montana Broadband Office can now get the right technology at the best price to implement this historic investment... ” That kind of flexibility is essential in a state with challenging geography and vast distances between communities. Getting rid of onerous rules does not mean getting rid of accountability. It is allowing states to design broadband solutions that fit their communities, avoiding one-size-fits-all mandates from Washington, D.C. This plan will help allow the dollars for broadband to go further and flow faster. It also provides an example for other states that are going through their implementation of BEAD. Getting rid of federal red tape is a good start. Freeing states up to make the best decisions for their communities most efficiently and effectively is how we will best close the digital divide. Montana's efforts are on track with many of the key principles promoted by Mountain States Policy Center. As states receive billions in BEAD dollars and other federal broadband grants, it's crucial they resist the temptation to build government-owned networks or adopt one-size-fits-all models pushed by Washington, D.C. Instead, policymakers should focus on tech-neutral, market-driven solutions that encourage innovation, foster private-sector competition, and avoid long-term public liabilities.

Medicaid is a joint federal and state-controlled health care insurance entitlement. It is not financially sustainable in its current form unless the federal debt or taxes are significantly increased. Our new study explores ways that states can reduce the financial burden for their taxpayers, while ensuring that their most vulnerable citizens continue to have access to health care. Medicaid eligibility was initially defined as:       1. All children in families with incomes of less than 133% of the federal poverty level (FPL);       2. All adult caretakers of eligible children;       3. Elderly people not receiving supplemental social security benefits;       4. The legally blind; and       5. The disabled. The Affordable Care Act of 2010, aka Obamacare, greatly expanded Medicaid to any low-income, able-bodied American between the ages of 18 to 64. The original ACA bill forced states to participate in the expansion. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this provision to be unconstitutional and left it up to individual states to decide on expanding their programs. Forty states, plus D.C., have chosen to expand their programs . The enticement in Obamacare for states was an increased federal payment match of 90 percent. Medicaid is now one of the largest budget items for every state and is the largest entitlement program for the federal government. For this expensive taxpayer investment, d oes having Medicaid health insurance actually save lives or improve health more than being uninsured? Except in very specific cases, the answer is no. A lottery-based expansion of Medicaid in Oregon in 2008 provided the opportunity to compare health outcomes. The two-year results of the subsequent health comparison study were published in  The New England Journal of Medicine.  The conclusion is surprising. It turns out that having Medicaid health insurance does not improve health outcomes, nor does it improve mortality statistics , compared to having no insurance coverage at all.   Another tragedy for Medicaid patients is limited access to care in some areas because of poor provider payments. States have the leeway to set reimbursement rates for doctors and medical facilities, but traditionally, these payments have been very low. Depending on the medical specialty, Medicaid pays physicians 30 to 50 percent of what private insurance pays. Hospital payments are likewise less than Medicare payments and considerably less than private insurance. No doctor or hospital could pay their overhead and keep their doors open with only Medicaid’s poor reimbursements. The reality is that not every provider can afford to see Medicaid patients, which limits recipients’ access to care. It is very clear that simply having health insurance does not guarantee timely access to health care. Rather than keep Medicaid spending increases on autopilot, state lawmakers can consider several reforms. These policy updates could include waivers, eligibility checks, block grants, and more patient control of health care dollars. We detail the various options in our new study   For example, the Idaho legislature recently passed a Medicaid reform bill into law. The legislation establishes a 20-hour-a-week work or community service requirement for able-bodied enrollees in Medicaid. The law also asks the federal government for waivers to place the state’s Medicaid program in a comprehensive managed care plan, as well as a waiver to establish cost-sharing in the program. In addition, the law includes an increase in provider payments to better align with Medicare reimbursements. The fiscal note estimates a savings of $15.9 million in 2026 and $27.2 million in 2027 and beyond. Although Idaho voters passed the Obamacare Medicaid expansion in 2018, the new legislation is potentially an excellent start at meaningful Medicaid reform. The massive expansion of Medicaid is completely understandable. Elected state officials have looked at the program as a federal piggy bank. They can feel good about providing health insurance to the poor, with the federal government paying over half the costs. In a sense, Medicaid could be considered the first step to a single-payer health care system in the United States. Although it appears that the federal money for Medicaid is “free” money for states, elected officials need to remember that federal taxpayers are also their state taxpayers. For meaningful reform and to ensure that the most vulnerable patients can still access the program, state officials must be willing to make the necessary changes to the entitlement. They should be willing to go to the federal government and push for sensible reforms. They must be willing to confront criticism and do what is necessary to guarantee Medicaid’s viability for those truly in need and for whom the program was originally designed to assist.

Idaho’s latest ISAT results should set off alarms. Despite significant increases in state funding, scores have barely budged — with just 53.2% of students proficient in English, 42.3% in math, and 41.7% in science. Yes, the state technically “met its goals,” but no one should be satisfied with half of Idaho kids struggling to meet watered-down expectations. Top 10 Schools - Math SCHOOL % PROFICIENT North Idaho Stem Charter Academy 91.9% Coeur d'Alene Charter Academy 89.0% Syringa Mountain 81.0% Liberty Charter 79.7% Victory Charter 78.8% Troy 75.5% Legacy Public Charter 74.9% North Star Charter 72.2% Compass Public Charter 71.6% Cottonwood 71.0% See how your school performed here, courtesy of Idaho Education News. Top 10 Schools - Language Arts SCHOOL % PROFICIENT North Idaho Stem Charter Academy 95.6% Coeur d'Alene Charter Academy 93.9% Syringa Mountain 91.1% North Star Charter 85.0% Victory Charter 84.2% Liberty Charter 83.7% Compass Public Charter 81.2% Legacy Public Charter 78.9% Thomas Jefferson Charter 78.7% Mccall-Donnelly 78.3% See how your school performed here, courtesy of Idaho Education News. This isn’t a one-year blip, and Idaho is doing better than many other states. But for years, states have poured more money into the system, only to see flat results. Entire generations of students are moving through our schools without ever mastering the basics. And often time the children falling the furthest behind are those who can least afford it: low-income students, English language learners, and others who are trapped in a system that simply isn’t working for them. Our students deserve better. Families should have the power to choose the learning environment that works best for their child — whether that’s a neighborhood public school, a charter school, private school, online program, or homeschooling. House Bill 93, the Parental Choice Tax Credit, was a major step in that direction. Expanding those kinds of options is one way to raise achievement and close the gaps that plague our system. Because here’s the truth: stagnation is not success. If half our kids are failing to meet grade level, then the system is failing them. We shouldn't lower expectations. Instead, we should empower parents to seek the best for their children. The choice should be obvious.

Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC), the region’s fastest-growing free market think tank, announced today that Dana Perino, co-anchor of America’s Newsroom on Fox News and former White House Press Secretary, will be the keynote speaker at its Spring Dinner in Boise on March 21, 2026.   The organization also announced that it is changing its dinner schedule starting next year - holding the annual Spring Dinner in Boise and Fall Dinner in Coeur d'Alene. Each will be held on a Saturday night.   Perino, one of the most respected voices in American media and politics, served as Press Secretary for President George W. Bush, becoming only the second woman ever to hold the position. Today, she is a bestselling author, a co-host of The Five on Fox News, and a trusted commentator on issues shaping the nation.   “Dana Perino is known for her thoughtfulness, her insight, and her commitment to civility in public life,” said Chris Cargill, President & CEO of Mountain States Policy Center. “We are honored to welcome her to Boise, and we know our guests will be inspired by her story and perspective.”   MSPC's Spring and Fall Dinners have quickly become one of the most anticipated public policy events in the region, bringing together leaders from business, government, and the community to celebrate ideas that expand opportunity and freedom.   This fall, MSPC is welcoming legal analyst Jonathan Turley at its dinner in Boise October 9th. Anyone who registers and attends the October 9th dinner will receive a discounted ticket to the Spring Dinner with Perino.   Sponsorship opportunities and table reservations for both dinners are available now HERE.   About Mountain States Policy Center Mountain States Policy Center is an independent, free market think tank dedicated to advancing opportunity, prosperity, and individual liberty across the Mountain West. MSPC provides research and policy solutions to empower citizens and promote government accountability.

Calls to abolish the property tax are growing louder across the country as elected representatives respond to constituents' increasing concerns about rising property assessments and tax bills. Wyoming is one of the states currently having this debate. What happens there next could be a lesson for lawmakers in other states. In the last year, Wyoming legislators passed stopgap measures to lower residents’ bills in the short term. The lack of meaningful and long-term reform, plus increasing assessments, is leading people to seek to eliminate the property tax in favor of a sales tax increase. In addition, more residents and their representatives are asking philosophical questions about the morality of taxing property repeatedly and why they should “pay rent to the government” in their opinion for property they supposedly own. To those who complain that they never “own” their property because of property taxes, what would be the alternative? As Jared Walczak writes in Confronting the New Property Tax Revolt : “Imagine a new community is formed in a place without government services. The best thing to do, presumably, is form a government, because some services are best provided or at least funded by governments. But if this were impossible for some reason, the private sector certainly can provide roads, schools, security services, firefighters, and the like. Imagine that homeowners enter contracts for some of these services, paying premiums for police and fire protection, or paying to ensure that their home is on the road grid. Would they value these services, and expect to pay for them, even though they already paid for their home? And would they, in fact, potentially value them more highly if their home has a higher value?” Regardless of whether one pays for services via property taxes or other means, a homeowner will need them continually, not just the year of purchase. Local governments are structured to provide stable services. As for a region’s economic outlook, multiple studies show that property taxes are healthier for growth than income and sales taxes. The data is clear: property taxes are both the most efficient way to raise local revenue, do the least harm, and can even help increase gross state and domestic product when taxes are shifted from income and sales taxes to property taxes. Defending the property tax does not mean it cannot be improved. The current system in Wyoming is a patchwork of complex and temporary exemptions that people must apply for and potentially unconstitutional rate cuts that treat people differently based on the type of property owned and the length of time spent in it each year. Policymakers across the country should focus on enacting levy limits and providing more transparency on the impact spending has on property taxes. This would shift the focus from assessments to the revenue needed to effectively provide core services while holding government officials accountable for spending decisions. When paired with a reform known as Truth in Taxation , residents would be able to meaningfully constrain their bills. These laws require local governments to advertise proposed property tax increases with detailed information and adequate time for public input and comment. To aid lower-income people of all ages, legislators could also pass what are known as circuit breakers. Generally, there are two types . One offers relief when property taxes surpass a certain income percentage and is known as a “threshold” circuit breaker. The other basis discounts on a “sliding scale” of different income levels. Instead of swapping a property tax system that has worked well for decades with an unproven and unreliable one destined to create animosity and infighting between different localities, why not improve the current one with reforms proven to guarantee both taxpayer relief and stable government revenue? Legislators should also avoid any changes like California’s Proposition 13, which passed in 1978. That law significantly distorted the market by discouraging homeowners from selling because if they moved, their property tax bill could be significantly higher each year based on the price of the new home. It also benefits long-term homeowners at the expense of new arrivals and causes problems for local governments, which must find other revenue streams to adequately fund local services. Skyrocketing property taxes that have outpaced wage growth and inflation in recent years have rightly frustrated homeowners and made them question the system. Lawmakers in Wyoming have thus far responded with short-term legislation to temporarily reduce the pain. While calls for scrapping the system are understandable, studies show the alternative – moving to a higher sales tax or imposing an income tax – will hurt the economy and job growth, provide inadequate funding, generate animosity between counties, and potentially deter people from moving to Wyoming. Policymakers should instead move to foster fairness, stability, transparency, and fiscal restraint through the proven concepts of levy limits paired with Truth in Taxation legislation and potentially circuit breaker relief to help lower-income homeowners of all ages. In doing so, lawmakers would pave the way for many other states facing property tax revolts to chart sustainable and sound paths forward through an emotionally charged issue.

Teachers’ unions are known for filing lawsuits against school choice, and as expected, on September 26, 2025, a committee led by the Idaho Education Association (IEA) filed suit with the Idaho Supreme Court, asking justices to declare a Writ of Prohibition to prevent House Bill 93’s Parental Choice Tax Credit from opening on January 15, 2026 . ​ On November 10, 2025, Mountain States Policy Center filed an amicus brief addressing the IEA’s claims with national case law analysis demonstrating that HB 93 is a constitutionally sound program that serves a legitimate public purpose benefiting Idahoans.   ​We have a strong interest in ensuring positive educational outcomes for Idaho students and firmly believe HB 93 has the power to provide expanded opportunities for families.   ​Our work toward this effort includes opening our Center for Education , offering community information sessions with lawmakers at local town halls, and establishing resources like IdahoKidsWin.com . Additionally, MSPC has provided state lawmakers with evidence-based policy recommendations, testified by invitation in committee hearings, and provided the legislature with empirical studies and reports to guide implementation.   ​This breadth of work provides a unique perspective to show the court that the parental choice tax credit serves to benefit the community as a whole, is directly related to the functions of government, and therefore does not violate the “public purpose” doctrine, as claimed by the IEA.   ​Although school choice opponents readily refer to HB 93 as a “voucher scheme or subsidy,” it is neither . This distinction is an important focus of our brief, as much of the constitutional analysis of school choice options depends on the funding structure.   Instead, the parental choice tax credit empowers parents to take charge of their student’s education. Unlike a voucher, there is no direct government payment to any private school, nor is money distributed to an Education Savings Account or scholarship.   HB 93 was specifically drafted to withstand constitutional scrutiny.   There is currently no enforceable state supreme court ruling in the United States holding a school choice tax credit as unconstitutional. Instead, court after court , across the country has allowed families to benefit from education choice tax credits.   ​Absent valid funding scrutiny, the legal challenges brought to the court center on the state education clauses presented in Article IX, Section 1, of the Idaho state constitution, which specifies:   ​“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.”   ​Plaintiffs claim that this wording of the constitution should be interpreted to only allow for a single public school system. However, providing alternative school choice options separate from common schools does not in any way infringe upon the constitution and, much to the dismay of the teacher’s union, the public system is not guaranteed a monopoly on Idaho children’s education.   ​The Idaho Legislature has fulfilled its mandate in support of public education through a funding increase in 2025, and an all-time high of $2.7 billion in total.   ​The $50 million in general funds allocated to the parental choice tax credit represents less than 2% of the state's overall education budget and can hardly be considered a parallel, competitive education system, as claimed. ​ Uniformity as dictated by the teacher’s union is not the law, and if it were, diverse state-funded programs like charter schools, or the Idaho Launch and Idaho Opportunity Scholarship programs, would be at risk of being deemed unconstitutional as well, based on precedent.   ​Bottom line: the education landscape is big enough to offer diverse, complementary education options that better support families, and the state constitution affords the legislature the ultimate authority in establishing appropriate school choice provisions. ​I encourage you to read the amicus highlighting personal stories of Idaho residents, the results of public polling in favor of school choice, and empirical studies demonstrating that improved outcomes for all students coincide with educational freedom.   HB 93 is not only allowed under our state constitution, it should be celebrated. The $5,000 tax credit ($7,500 special needs) will help children who don’t fit the traditional public school system receive the best possible education to meet their individual needs.

Montana families seeking flexible education options for students with special needs received disappointing news last week when a District Court Judge blocked implementation of the state’s Education Savings Account (ESA) program. While earlier court decisions allowed the program to move forward, this latest ruling has paused ESAs entirely. The Students with Special Needs Equal Opportunity Act program, created in 2023 by House Bill 393 , was designed to give families of students with special needs access to education savings accounts (ESAs) up to $8,000 per student. These funds could be used for approved educational expenses such as private school tuition, therapies, tutoring, curriculum, and instructional materials. Shortly after implementation began, the Montana Quality Education Coalition, the lobbying arm of Montana’s public school establishment,  and Disability Rights Montana, a government-funded legal advocacy office,  filed suit seeking to stop the program and undermine education choice. In an earlier ruling, the court declined to block ESAs from moving forward. However, in the most recent decision, the judge concluded that the legislature failed to include sufficiently explicit appropriation language required under Montana’s constitution. As a result, the program has been put on hold. The good news is that this is a technical problem and is fixable. The court did  not r ule that education savings accounts are unconstitutional. The court did not  find that allowing families to direct education funding toward private services violates Montana law. The court did not rule against education choice or parental decision-making. Instead, the ruling focused narrowly on the mechanics of how the program was funded and this issue can be resolved by the legislature. With the legislature not scheduled to meet again until 2027, a special session should be convened to clarify funding language and fix the appropriation to satisfy constitutional requirements. This approach would address the court’s concern while preserving the legislature’s original intent: giving families of students with special needs more educational options. For families already using or preparing to use ESAs, this pause creates uncertainty. That uncertainty affects real children with real needs. The program serves up to 100 families who decidedly opted out of the traditional public school system because it wasn’t working with their learning styles, medical challenges, or developmental differences. Now, these students who felt there were no other options and were thriving under the ESA program have been cut off. Students should not have their placement changed mid-year because a technical legislative correction is needed.  Governor Gianforte told us about the ruling: “Each child is unique and deserves access to the best education possible to meet his or her individual needs. This is especially true for the more than 18,000 students in Montana who require specialized education services. I am deeply disappointed in the court's ruling, which disrupts the education of Montana students who most need specialized services. We should empower Montana parents to pursue and secure the education that best meets the individual needs of their child.” Education Savings Accounts exist because traditional systems, however well-intentioned, cannot meet every child’s needs. ESAs give parents the flexibility to assemble the right mix of services like specialized private school, targeted therapy, individualized tutoring, or a combination of supports. Students with special needs deserve options, and families deserve tools to help their children succeed. Montana families were promised a program designed to put students first. With prompt legislative action, that promise can still be kept. The path forward is clear and what remains to be seen is whether elected leaders will act.