A citizens committee has voted to give Idaho legislators a raise , and just about everyone has an opinion on whether they should take it. Last week, the Idaho State Senate approved a bill to reject the roughly 22% pay hike, which would have increased legislative salaries from $19,913 to about $25,000 per year. The hike is worth roughly $5,000 per legislator. This week, the Idaho House has introduced a resolution which allows legislators to forgo all or part of their legislative pay and donate it to Tax Relief Fund. In other words, if you're opposed to the increase, donate it back to the state. Some opponents of the pay hike have insisted that the money, instead, be spent on tax relief. A 22% salary hike for legislators sounds large, until you start doing the math. In total, it represents just $534,135 in state spending, or .00009% of the state's general fund revenues in 2024. If you used that money on tax relief, instead, you'd have enough to give every citizen in the state about 26 cents. You read that right - 26 cents. Tax relief is needed, not only in Idaho but across the nation. Keeping tax rates low can help working families and businesses, and make the state more attractive to new business. Idaho will likely consider hundreds of millions of dollars  in tax decreases this session. (For the record, we've recommended they start with lowering the income tax. ) But 26 cents won't buy you much relief. It's worth considering how the states compare when it comes to legislative salaries. Idaho's current legislative salary is higher than in Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, South Dakota, South Carolina, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Rhode Island. New Hampshire, notably, pays legislators just $100 in salary. New Mexico doesn't pay its lawmakers a dime of salary (though they do receive mileage and a travel stipend during session). Idaho ranks below most other states and even U.S. territories, including Guam and American Samoa. Debating whether Idaho should pay its legislators more is certainly valid. And calling for a reduction in the financial burden and taxes we're placing on citizens is needed. But let's not pretend that we could use the proposed pay hike to lower taxes in any meaningful way.

Goldilocks and the Three Bears likely approve. An education choice proposal introduced in Idaho’s Revenue and Taxation committee on Wednesday isn't too hot, isn't too cold, and may be the just right  way to advance choice options in the Gem State.   State Representative Wendy Horman announced her bill, the Idaho Parental Choice Tax Credit , to committee members, stating that her main concentration was advancing the education of every child.    “No exceptions – every child, no matter where they are learning,” Horman told the committee. The measure is co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Lori Den Hartog, House Majority Leader Jason Monks, and Senator Scott Grow.   The Idaho Parental Choice Tax Credit is similar to a proposal introduced in the 2024 session. It’s a $50 million program that will offer refundable tax credits of up to $5,000 per child, or $7,500 per child with special needs, to cover qualified expenses such as K-12 tuition and fees, tutoring, standardized tests, AP exams, textbooks and specific transportation costs. All families can apply, but priority will be given to those at 300% of the federal poverty level. There will also be a one-time advanced tax credit payment to help families get started.   The program does not take a dime away from the state’s K-12 budget. With the $50 million cap, it is likely that fewer than 10,000 families will be able to take advantage. For reference, there are 36,000+ students attending private and home school, and more than 300,000 students in K-12 public schools in Idaho.   At $50 million, the cost of the program is equal to just .0185% of the state’s K-12 budget . It could not be increased unless a future legislature decided to take further action.   In his state of the state proposal, Governor Brad Little announced his support for a $50 million plan that would be fair, accountable and transparent . The proposal introduced by Representative Horman certainly checks those boxes.   The measure introduced today includes penalties for misusing program funds, requirements that the state tax commission publish updates on credit amounts, reports that will be made to the governor, the controller and legislative committees, and transparent information on the number of parents applying, the household incomes, and the geographic location of the applicants. Representative Wendy Horman testifies before the Idaho House Revenue and Taxation Committee on Wed., January 22, 2025. Our recent Idaho Poll found strong support for an education choice tax credit (66%) , with majority approval among Republicans, Democrats and Independents.   There are more than 180 studies on the impact of education choice , with 84% showing positive results.   The legal cases, too, show overwhelming support from the courts on proposals to advance education freedom.   Idaho lawmakers may have found just the right vehicle to finally get choice across the finish line this session.

President Donald Trump has big plans to tackle government efficiency and accountability during his new administration. This includes implementing the federal Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE . This effort will provide the White House with guidance on how to cut back on excessive bureaucracy and streamline processes. It is set to operate for only 2 years until July 4th, 2026 , the 250th anniversary of Independence Day.   Among the states looking to take DOGE to the local level are Idaho and Montana. In fact, Idaho Speaker of the House Mike Moyle recently introduced HB 14: Idaho Code Cleanup Act . Speaker Moyle said in a tweet : “We're going to take a close look at state agencies this year, and make sure they're fulfilling not only their legislative mandates, but working for the people of Idaho.” From the text of Idaho HB 14 : “It is the intent of the legislature to ensure that the state laws provided in Idaho Code are streamlined, up-to-date, and essential for the citizens of Idaho, while best serving the public health, safety, and welfare. To this end, the legislature recognizes the need for a comprehensive effort to review the Idaho Code for the purpose of eliminating bureaucracy. Accordingly, in the interest of addressing the accumulation of unnecessary provisions, the purpose of this chapter is to establish an efficient process for the identification of provisions that are obsolete, outdated, or unnecessary so that such provisions may be considered for removal.”   DOGE-type reforms have support across the country. For example, the Republican Governor’s Association (RGA) sent a letter in support of DOGE. They wrote : “We are writing today to express our overwhelming support for President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Initiative and request that Congress work alongside him to solidify the efficiencies that are found into law. As chief executives for our states, we know a thing or two about streamlining government, removing unnecessary bureaucracy, and bringing efficient, result-driven solutions to state government.  We stand by President Trump as he works to do the same with the federal government. These results don’t just happen overnight. Our states are successful because we live within our means. We balance our budgets, lower taxes, leverage surpluses, pay down debt, improve the efficiency of state governments, and create an environment where our constituents can build a prosperous future for themselves, their family, and their community. It is past time for Washington to live within its means too. We support President Trump’s appointment of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy and agree with their assertion that the federal government needs to be cut down to size. We stand ready to help.” There has also been a movement to make sure DOGE’s suggestions are actually implemented. Congressmen Aaron Bean and Pete Sessions co-founded the “ Delivering Outstanding Government Efficiency Caucus ” in the U.S. House of Representatives with Senator Joni Ernst running the Senate counterpart. Newly elected governor Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire has also followed the lead of President Trump in enacting programs to cut government waste. In her inaugural address, she announced the creation of the Commission on Government Efficiency or COGE . In the Mountain States, Idaho Governor Brad Little and Montana Governor Greg Gianforte have applauded the efforts by DOGE. Governor Gianforte said : “In your new roles, you face an enormous challenge in reducing spending that has left us more than $36 trillion in debt, eliminating the unnecessary bloat of the administrative state, and cutting regulations that hold back American innovators, businesses, and workers, as a businessman and entrepreneur, I know that cutting unnecessary, burdensome regulations is central to opening the doors of greater opportunity for our citizens to achieve the American dream.” The outgoing Governor of New Hampshire Chris Sununu pointed to Idaho as a great example of how DOGE should work. He specifically points to 2019, when Idaho Governor Brad Little and the legislature passed the Red Tape Reduction Act and the Licensing Freedom Act of 2019. As of August 2024, these acts have shrunk the Idaho Administrative Code from 8,553 to 5,318 pages . Governor Little said this in his recent State of the State address : "There is no doubt Idaho is on a roll. Even Elon Musk posted on social media three times in one day about Idaho’s red tape reduction successes. We know we have caught the attention of the rest of the country.  President Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency is already looking to Idaho for the blueprint on how to cut red tape, stimulate economic growth, and streamline government. Idaho stands ready to partner with the Trump administration. As the least regulated state in the country, Idaho has an incredible story to share – one worth replicating elsewhere, including Washington, D.C. In the coming weeks, I will highlight all the ways Idaho is conquering waste in government, with some brand-new ideas on reducing government’s footprint in people’s lives."  While DOGE is a fantastic idea, the challenging part will be enacting the policies necessary to trim down the federal government. Musk commented that they will initially target “ the $500 billion-plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended.” It’s encouraging to see a movement for reducing government bureaucracy and wasteful spending across the nation. The federal DOGE effort to support measures that increase governmental transparency and accountability is a great start and it can learn a thing or two from the great work already happening in Idaho and Montana.

For Idahoans, the inauguration of a new president meant the end of a controversial wind project. Among the hundreds of executive actions President Donald Trump took on Monday was an executive order that puts a stop to the Lava Ridge Wind Energy Project. The project would have built hundreds of wind turbines on nearly 100,000 acres of public land. Although not as big as previously proposed, it would have still erected 241 turbines at a height of nearly 660 feet each. Idaho officials repeatedly said no to the federal plans which were first introduced in 2020, but the Biden Administration still moved forward. At the close of the public comment  in April 2023, 11,000 submissions were registered by the Bureau of Land Management, and Magic Valley residents were united against  the project citing disregard for local historical  sites, economic concerns, environmental impacts, and the low aesthetic appeal. “I made a promise to Idahoans that I would not rest until the Lava Ridge Wind Project was terminated. On day one, President Donald Trump took action to keep that promise,”  Idaho Senator Jim Risch said in a news release.

Public funds should be used to provide essential services and not to subsidize the activities of government unions. This is why taxpayers across the country have raised concerns about using public funds to support union activities, such as payroll deductions for union dues, paid release time for union activities, and the use of public resources to advocate for union policies. We previously noted the use of taxpayer subsidies for teacher unions in Idaho. The article highlighted how money is sent from Idaho school districts to unions like the Idaho Education Association (IEA) and its national affiliate, the National Education Association (NEA). A good portion of this funding proceeds to political lobbying and activities that do not reflect the values of all taxpayers. Union activities should be paid for by union dues, not taxpayers. These same principles apply throughout the Mountain States region. Montana’s Senate Bill 94 (SB94) aims to avoid these issues. The bill, as written, would prohibit public employers from compensating their employees for doing union work on the clock. It would allow employees to use unpaid leave or their personal PTO for union work, and would allow employees to continue performing union functions during the workday so long as the union reimbursed the public employer for the employees’ lost time. These measures are intended to ensure public resources go only toward providing public services, underscoring fiscal accountability. Another reform to consider would be ending automatic payroll reductions for government union dues. In 2023, Arkansas enacted Senate Bill 473 , which makes it unlawful for a school district to deduct dues, fees, or contributions from the paycheck of any teacher or classified employee on behalf of any professional or labor organization. Florida also passed Senate Bill 256 , which, among other things, prohibits school districts from automatically taking union dues out of public employees’ paychecks (including teachers’). Idaho public opinion data suggests that reforms of this nature would be well received. Data shows that 66% of Idaho voters are in favor of bans preventing public schools from deducting union dues on behalf of teachers' unions, and 54% support a ban on taxpayer-funded spending on behalf of the teacher union, according to the poll conducted by the National Freedom Foundation. The results indicate that over half of voters want the government to provide money only for educational purposes and not to subsidize union actions. Reforms like Montana SB94 can help cement more accountability. This framework restores power to public employees because it allows professionals to have more control over union membership, protects taxpayers because it directs public funds toward public services, and encourages competition because it places the policy and representation of alternative approaches on equal footing. One of the key focus areas of these reforms is accountability when it comes to using taxpayer dollars toward government union activities. Montana's SB94, along with similar measures in other states, are pivotal steps in ensuring public resources contribute to actual services instead of union political objectives.

A new proposal in Montana would utilize what is referred to as a “harm reduction” principle to tier the tobacco tax rate depending on how harmful the product is. Currently, Montana imposes a $1.70 tax per 20-cigarette package . Under Senate Bill 98 , a new, lower tax rate of 85 cents for packages of 20 heat sticks that are intended to be heated and not burned would be created. The goal of this proposal is to incentivize smokers to move towards less harmful products. This type of tax policy is known as “harm reduction.” According to the Tax Foundation : “To better understand the trade-offs involved in nicotine tax policy design, it is crucial to introduce the concept of harm reduction. Harm reduction emphasizes the practicality of reducing the harm associated with certain goods rather than attempting to eliminate it entirely through bans or excessively high taxes. This approach represents a departure from the traditional thinking that has dominated public health efforts to promote cessation. The FDA recognizes harm reduction through its classifications of premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) and modified risk tobacco products. Under these classifications, certain tobacco and nicotine products can be designated as less harmful compared to others. For instance, the first-ever MRTP order was granted to Swedish-style snus products, allowing the manufacturer to claim that the use of these products lowers consumers’ risks in comparison to cigarettes.” The Tax Foundation ultimately recommends:  “To incentivize switching, safer nicotine products should receive a preferential tax rate compared to combustible cigarettes.” While this type of tax policy makes sense from a public health perspective, "sin taxes" in general conflict with sound principles of taxation. Ideally, a tax system should focus on simplicity, transparency, neutrality, and stability. Here is how the Tax Foundation describes these terms : “Simplicity: Tax codes should be easy for taxpayers to comply with and for governments to administer and enforce. Transparency: Tax policies should clearly and plainly define what taxpayers must pay and when they must pay it. Hiding tax burdens in complex structures should be avoided. Additionally, any changes to the tax code should be made with careful consideration, input, and open hearings. Neutrality: Taxes should neither encourage nor discourage personal or business decisions. The purpose of taxes is to raise needed revenue, not to favor or punish specific industries, activities, and products. Minimizing tax preferences broadens the tax base, so that the government can raise sufficient revenue with lower rates. Stability: Taxpayers deserve consistency and predictability in the tax code. Governments should avoid enacting temporary tax laws, including tax holidays, amnesties, and retroactive changes, and strive to establish stable revenue sources.” Sin taxes conflict with the neutrality principle. While using the tax code to change behavior should be avoided, an ideal tax code must be weighed against the public health goals of using harm reduction policies. Ideally, there should be no sin taxes and we’d encourage lawmakers to work towards repealing them. The purpose of the tax code should not be punishing behavior. In the meantime, scaling sin taxes on a harm reduction principle to improve public health is a debate worth having.

Charter schools, Education Savings Accounts, and now a tax credit? Over the past two legislative sessions, Montana lawmakers haven't been shy about expanding education choice options for children. And it seems that momentum is carrying over to this session. A new bill has been introduced by Representative Greg Overstreeet to provide a tax credit for non-public school education expenses. There's no specific amount, rather the credit would be equal to the nonpublic school education expenses paid by the taxpayer or a state-designated percentage, and it could not exceed a taxpayer's total tax liability. Last legislative session, lawmakers passed Montana House Bill 393 , which allowed parents of a student with a disability the chance to have access to an Education Savings Account or “ESA.” ESA’s are extremely popular with parents and are common in many states around the nation. Polling has shown overwhelming support across party lines and demographics. The ESA in HB 393 allows parents who choose to sign up to access roughly $6,800 that can be used on education therapies, private school tuition and fees, textbooks, curriculum, tutoring, transportation, and other education-related expenses. It can be a tremendously helpful tool for parents who might not have the resources to help their child. Speech and occupational therapies alone can cost a family thousands of dollars each year – an expense many families cannot afford. Unions have sued to block implementation of not only the ESA, but Montana's new charter schools as well.

Lawmaking isn't pretty, or easy. It shouldn't be. Thousands of pieces of legislation are introduced in state capitols and Washington, D.C. each year. Some are dozens of pages, others can exceed the one-thousand page mark. Sometimes you need a legal degree just to understand what it all means. But Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) wants to make it much easier. That's why we're launching WONK - a free AI legislative companion that will read every bill, explain every bill, and answer your questions about the bill - in just seconds. WONK is a public service of MSPC - and a first-of-its-kind system aimed at bringing transparency to the legislative process in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Washington. "AI will change the way the world works, and we believe it can be used for the better," MSPC President Chris Cargill said. "WONK will quickly become an indispensable tool for those who care about the legislative process." AI isn't perfect. Programmers believe it will take several weeks for the system to run with near total accuracy, but the more people engage with the system, the smarter WONK gets. Mountain States Policy Center is 501(c)3 non profit and the region's top free market think tank, with an annual budget of $1.6 million. Note: WONK is new and still learning. Please be patient as he learns the bills, the states and begins to populate the system over the next week or two. MSPC's Chris Cargill explains how WONK works.

In 2023, the State of Idaho launched an ambitious technological overhaul with the Luma system, a comprehensive, cloud-based system designed to centralize and automate essential functions across state agencies. Approved with a budget of $117 million, Luma was intended to replace outdated systems from the 1980s that no longer met Idaho’s needs for modern governance, security, and efficiency. The project implementation itself cost $93 million, coming in under the projected $102 million outlined in the system modernization study. By consolidating payroll, finance, human resources, budgeting, and procurement processes into one unified platform, the Idaho State Controller’s office aimed to create a streamlined system that would improve transparency, enhance data security, and facilitate more efficient operations across its 86 state agencies.   Despite its potential, Luma's rollout has faced significant challenges . The system has been met with user frustration, operational disruptions, and complex adjustments to daily workflows. Recently, audits revealed high rates of data validation and security failures, and employee surveys indicated widespread dissatisfaction. Many users report that tasks now require more time and additional steps, with some employees resorting to workarounds outside the Luma platform to complete their responsibilities. The Idaho Office of Performance Evaluation, tasked with assessing the system’s functionality, found that only a small percentage of employees believe Luma has improved efficiency, with most users reporting increased complexity and difficulty in daily tasks.   These challenges are not unique to Idaho. Large-scale IT transitions in government face many pressures, including the need for broad stakeholder buy-in, rigorous data security, and continuity across varied departments. A U.S. General Services Administration report notes a study by The Standish Group, found that as few as 13% of such projects succeed, often due to outdated procurement practices, lack of change management, and insufficient employee training.   The challenges Luma has faced leave Idaho’s state operations at a crossroads, with a critical need for strategic improvements to fulfill the system’s intended purpose. The issues with Luma have strained state resources, increased employee workloads, and, in some cases, compromised data accuracy and security. Despite these challenges, Idaho remains committed to the system, recognizing that reversing course would be cost-prohibitive.   The Idaho State Controller’s Office has acknowledged the need for improvement and plans to implement updates, including artificial intelligence tools that could help automate certain processes. These updates, if effectively implemented, could enhance Luma’s functionality and alleviate some of the system’s current inefficiencies. Additionally, the OPE’s ongoing evaluations and legislative scrutiny indicate that Idaho’s government is taking Luma’s challenges seriously and is committed to finding solutions.   Moving forward, Idaho State Controller Brandon Woolf emphasized his commitment to improving the Luma system . “The narrative that Luma does not work is counterproductive and not accurate,” Woolf said. “Luma is functional but it’s not perfect – it processes transactions, handles payments and ensures everyone gets paid.” Woolf added that his top priority is improving reporting processes within Luma while stressing that the system’s security benefits and standardization across agencies are already making a difference.   To realize Luma’s full potential, Idaho must address these challenges through comprehensive training programs, regular audits, phased updates, and a proactive approach to identifying and resolving issues. Luma’s experience underscores the importance of planning, preparation, and continuous oversight in government IT projects. Moving forward, the lessons learned from Luma’s implementation will not only shape Idaho’s approach to IT modernization but also offer a roadmap for other states undertaking similar projects.   As Idaho’s Luma system shows, the promise of innovation in government technology comes with great potential and substantial risk. At Mountain States Policy Center, we believe that a free-market approach to innovation, with a focus on efficiency and fiscal responsibility, is the cornerstone of effective governance. Luma’s journey highlights the importance of combining ambitious technological advancements with careful, measured planning and oversight to protect taxpayer resources while maintaining public trust.   As Idaho works to refine the Luma system, we echo Controller Woolf’s belief in the system’s potential. Woolf said his priority is to improve Luma’s reporting processes while continuing to build on its security benefits and agency standardization. This underscores the state’s commitment to ensuring Luma’s success.   Modernizing state systems is vital in an increasingly digital world, but the execution must be as well-structured as the goals. Luma was envisioned as a leap forward in transparency, security, and efficiency, but a rushed rollout, and insufficient training limited its ability to deliver on these promises. As stewards of public funds, government leaders have a duty to ensure that technological advancements are thoughtfully vetted and implemented in ways that enhance productivity without sacrificing reliability or accountability.   The story of Luma is a reminder that with the right balance of innovation, planning, and oversight, government technology projects can achieve their goals, without exceeding their budgets or compromising on service. For Idaho and other states pursuing similar modernization efforts, the path forward is clear: embrace technology, but ground it in strategic, human-centered practices that ensure each dollar spent delivers measurable value to the public.

Several lawmakers in Washington state have proposed a bill to study the creation of an official open government ombudsman. The details can be found in HB 1055: Enhancing access to public records . This is a very exciting proposal and one we hope other states will also consider. Authorizing an open government ombudsman is one of the recommendations from our Policy Manual . Here is the intent section for WA’s HB 1055 : “It is the intent of the legislature to reaffirm its commitment to open, transparent, and accountable governance through commissioning a broad-based study on the establishment of the Washington office of transparency ombuds as a nonpartisan and independent agency. The legislature finds that residents of Washington have every right to know how their elected officials and government agencies come to critical decisions which impact their livelihoods so greatly. Barriers to accessing these records only act as a disservice to the public. The legislature further intends to build upon the foundation set by the voters through their adoption of Initiative Measure No. 276, also known as the public records act, by ensuring individuals have an independent advocate holding lawmakers and public agencies accountable as stewards of official public records.” The bill report  for HB 1055 says in part: “. . . conduct a study on the efficacy of establishing an independent nonpartisan agency dedicated to promoting open government and assisting individuals with accessing public records. The office would be named the Washington Office of Transparency Ombuds (OTO). The study must: include an overview of each state's public records laws, or similar laws, and compare those laws with Washington's public records laws; evaluate independent state agencies that are located in other states and are dedicated to serving individuals who seek to access public records, which must include, among other things, information on whether litigation pertaining to public records requests has decreased after the creation of the state's independent agency and resources provided by the state to assist individuals in understanding public records laws; determine the efficacy of establishing the OTO, which will be measured by: potential cost savings from reduced litigation costs, increased ease of access to public records, additional resources to assist the public in understanding public records laws, and the prospect of an independent agency to provide individuals with alternatives to litigation; and include recommended duties of the OTO.” Wyoming is one of the states that currently has an open government ombudsman. According to a release by Governor Gordon : “The Ombudsman position was created with the passage of Senate File 57 in 2019. The Public Records Ombudsman serves as a resource for the public to resolve issues regarding public records requests submitted to state and local government agencies. In addition, the position provides aid to state and local governments to understand their obligations in response to such requests. The Ombudsman is also charged with mediating disputes relating to the timeliness of a records production, an agency's claim of privilege or confidentiality, and fees.”  To ensure public accountability and maintain control over the actions of government officials, state laws across the country authorize access to public records and require open public meetings. Though these rights exist on paper, they are not self-executing and often can result in costly litigation as the people attempt to enforce open government laws. Authorization of an official open government ombudsman could help serve as an advocate for the people’s right to know. The foundations for an accountable government can be found in strong citizen oversight, and one of the most critical tools to achieve this is open government laws. Authorizing an open government ombudsman would provide a helpful resource for citizens and potentially reduce the possibility of litigation relating to the enforcement of state public records and open meeting laws.

One of the most important powers secured by Idaho’s constitution is the right of the people to reject and propose laws via a referendum or initiative. The initiative power is subject to conditions set by the legislature and several changes may be proposed during the 2025 Legislative Session. When considering a constitutional right, the question then becomes what is the best way to exercise that power in a responsible and appropriate way? Article 1, Section 2 of Idaho’s constitution proclaims : “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the legislature.” Article 3, Section 1 of Idaho’s constitution makes it clear the people are not subservient to the legislature : “The people reserve to themselves the power to approve or reject at the polls any act or measure passed by the legislature. This power is known as the referendum, and legal voters may, under such conditions and in such manner as may be provided by acts of the legislature, demand a referendum vote on any act or measure passed by the legislature and cause the same to be submitted to a vote of the people for their approval or rejection. The people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws, and enact the same at the polls independent of the legislature. This power is known as the initiative, and legal voters may, under such conditions and in such manner as may be provided by acts of the legislature, initiate any desired legislation and cause the same to be submitted to the vote of the people at a general election for their approval or rejection.” While the state constitution gives the people co-equal lawmaking powers, the legislature is provided the authority to set the terms “under such conditions and in such manner as may be provided by acts of the legislature.” Judging from some of the comments made by lawmakers already this session, it is likely that we will see several proposals this year advocating changes to the people’s power of initiative. One bill has already been introduced proposing changes ( HB 2 ). Unlike what occurs for a bill, there isn’t an opportunity for public hearings or amendments before the text of a ballot measure is finalized and put before voters. This means voters are given a take it or leave option, even if flaws or problems are identified after a ballot measure qualifies. One idea to maintain the strong right of initiative while following the more traditional public process that a bill goes through would be to restructure the initiative process as proposals to the legislature. A variation of this legislative initiative option is available in Nevada and Washington. Here is the requirement under Article 19 of the Nevada constitution : "The Secretary of State shall transmit such petition to the Legislature as soon as the Legislature convenes and organizes. The petition shall take precedence over all other measures except appropriation bills, and the statute or amendment to a statute proposed thereby shall be enacted or rejected by the Legislature without change or amendment within 40 days." The Nevada legislature describes the process this way : "If the Legislature does not enact the initiative without change within 40 days from when the regular session of the Legislature convenes, the question is submitted to the voters at the next general election for approval or disapproval. If the Legislature amends the initiative (and it is passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor), both versions of the initiative will be added to the ballot at the next general election and the initiative with the highest number of votes in favor will become law." Under the “initiative to the legislature” option in Washington, there are three possible outcomes for a ballot measure that qualifies: The legislature can adopt the proposal as submitted without changes. Under this option, the language is not subject to veto by the governor and automatically becomes law if approved by lawmakers; The legislature can propose alternative language. If this occurs the legislative alternative and original proposal are both placed on the ballot for voters to consider; or The legislature can take no action other than holding a public hearing. If this occurs the original proposal is placed on the ballot. Regardless of the option used, lawmakers in the Evergreen State must at least hold a public hearing to allow the case for the policy changes to be heard and identify any concerns. Article 2, Section 1 of the Washington constitution says about this type of ballot measure : “Such initiative measures, whether certified or provisionally certified, shall take precedence over all other measures in the legislature except appropriation bills…” Voters in Washington utilized this “initiative to the legislature” option six times in 2024 . Three of the initiatives were directly approved by the legislature and the other three were placed on the ballot. The ability to directly propose laws is an awesome and important constitutional right of the people in Idaho. To ensure the best policies are enacted and provide a more traditional legislative vetting of proposals, Idaho may want to consider a constitutional amendment transitioning to an “initiative to the legislature” format. This would allow the people to propose laws while providing an opportunity for lawmakers to enact them directly (without veto threat), propose an alternative, or take no action other than holding public hearings before placing the original proposal directly on the ballot.

Hold on to your hats. Keep track of your wallets. Legislative sessions are now fully underway in Idaho, Washington, Montana and Wyoming. And, much like the weather this time of year, the first few weeks of January produce a high drift of legislation. Sure, some things are important. A state budget, for example, is a necessity. Still, there seems to be a greater urge each and every year to expand the lawmaking. Consider the fact that lawmakers in Washington introduced 3,091 bills in their last legislative session. Montana lawmakers put forward 1,699 pieces of legislation. Idaho lawmakers were relatively frugal, with 718 pieces of legislation. Is all this lawmaking really necessary? It might depend on your political point of view. But one easy way to get a sense of the necessity is whether the bills proposed actually become law. In Idaho last year, that delta was roughly 50%. In other words, for every two bills introduced, one became law. In Montana, 52% of bills were signed into law. In Washington, however, it was just a third. State Bills Introduced (last session) Bills Signed Into Law Percentage Idaho 718 364 50.6% Montana 1699 880 51.7% Washington 3091 1051 34% Wyoming 366 117 31.9% Utah 934 550 58.8% California 5558 2536 45.6% Colorado 778 557 71.5% New Mexico 777 104 13.3% Oregon 291 133 45.7% Nevada 1096 571 52.1% Arizona 1798 290 16.1% Passing legislation certainly isn't a contest. And this column is in no way an encouragement to increase those percentages. But it is worth pointing out that introducing legislation takes time and resources - resources that are provided by taxpayers (So perhaps a new state rock shouldn't be high on a lawmaker's list). More bill introductions also make tracking your elected official's work more difficult. Some states, including Arizona, California, New Jersey, Colorado, North Carolina, Florida, North Dakota, Indiana, Louisiana and Montana have sought to restrict how many bills a legislator can introduce each session. Montana's joint Rule 40-40 "allows members of the Montana Legislature to request an unlimited number of bill or resolution drafts before December 5. After that date, a member may request the Legislative Council to prepare no more than seven bills or resolutions. Unused requests by one member may be granted to another member. The limits do not apply to code commissioner bills or committee bills." Do all states need a rule that limits a lawmaker's appetite for more and more legislation? Maybe. But we'd rather see a self-imposed diet.

MSPC has written fairly extensively on the federal and state lawsuits to stop the Kroger-Albertsons store merger. At stake, we have said, is the arguments use false flags of “lessening competition and job losses” and also were heavily reliant on an archaic definition of “grocery stores” and the consumers who shop at them. Just last year, I published a piece in The Spokesman-Review outlining the reality of today’s shoppers.   My assessment stands true today: Like it or not, the way we shop has dramatically changed. More Americans are doing their shopping online or at a discount warehouse. Fewer go inside the grocery store, and if they do, they are going for a specific product not their full shopping experience.   The fact is that 30 years ago, supermarkets accounted for 81% of retail sales. Today that number is roughly 50%.  That’s because online and warehouse competition has changed everything – and it has helped lower the cost of many goods and given consumers more choice in where they buy products and the ability to shop at several stores for the best deals.   The fact is, despite the rulings at the state and federal level to halt the store merger, traditional grocery stores are fighting for survival against the Goliaths of the grocery marketplace: Walmart, Amazon and Costco.   Here is some perspective I have continued to point to: Walmart/Sam’s Club, make up nearly 30% of the U.S. grocery market share. Costco is 7% and Amazon is more than 5% of the overall grocery market. Albertsons and Kroger combined makes up a paltry 9% of nationwide sales.   Free-market principles work – more competition means lower prices for consumers. Now that the courts have weighed in and put a hold on the merger, it remains to be seen what will happen to the small grocers like Kroger and Albertsons.   If the Jet Blue and Spirit airlines’ merger that the Federal Trade Commission declined gives us a preview, we can expect job losses, increased costs and less choice for consumers. Washington state’s next attorney general and the new federal administration should take note of the changing landscape and revisit our nation’s free market success.

Congress passed the original Medicaid program in 1965 as a health insurance safety net for the most vulnerable low-income people in the United States. These individuals include the poor, parents with children, the disabled, and those needing long-term care. Medicaid is a pure welfare plan financed by both state and federal taxpayers. Of course, state and federal taxpayers are the same individuals, families, and businesses. The original program was set up such that the federal government would match the financing with states in a 50/50 percent arrangement. Congressional members at the time believed that state legislators would resist increasing the size of Medicaid simply because they would want to limit the impact on their state budgets. The exact opposite has occurred. State officials look at the Medicaid program as “free” federal money. Unlike other state budget items, for every state dollar legislators spend on Medicaid, they get a matching federal dollar. The Medicaid program is now one of the top three budget items for every state in the U.S. and is one of the federal government’s largest non-discretionary spending programs. Inflation-adjusted spending the first year of Medicaid was $10 billion compared to $900 billion for fiscal year 2023 . In other words, Medicaid spending has exploded far beyond inflation alone. Over the years, the federal contribution to the original Medicaid has gradually increased beyond 50 percent. For example, for fiscal 2024, federal taxpayers contributed 64 percent of the cost of Montana’s original program. One in five Montanans are currently covered by Medicaid. The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, became law in 2010, with most benefits beginning in 2014. After litigation to the U.S. Supreme Court, the law was amended so that states could decide whether to expand Medicaid to any able-bodied 18 to 64-year-old person. The incentive is that the federal government would pay 90 percent of the financing of the expanded program. Montana is one of 40 states that chose to expand Medicaid under Obamacare. Wyoming is the only mountain state that has not expanded Medicaid. The federal government relaxed the enrollment requirements for the expanded Medicaid significantly during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. A time limit was placed on the relaxed enrollment. The issue is now whether Montana’s elected officials should extend this time frame . Montana’s enrollment numbers are revealing. In 2016, the year Montana’s legislature expanded Medicaid, the overall program provided benefits to 125,000 children, 50,000 adults in the original Medicaid, and 50,000 adults in the expanded plan. In 2023, the expanded program had more than doubled to 110,000 and the original plan likewise more than doubled to 110,000. The number of children actually dropped to 111,000 enrollees. Supporters of Medicaid in Montana claim that the “data” show the program is working well and is a benefit to the state. Unfortunately, there are some real problems with the entitlement. First of all, the provider payments in Medicaid are dismal. Depending on the specialty, doctors receive 20 to 40 percent of what private health insurance pays for the same procedure or treatment. Hospital reimbursements are likewise extremely low. There is no physician’s office or hospital that could keep its doors open with Medicaid payments alone. From a patient’s standpoint, simply having health insurance with Medicaid does not guarantee timely access to health care. Secondly, employers with low-wage employees have a real disincentive to provide health insurance since they assume or hope that taxpayers via Medicaid will cover these individuals. Third, these low-wage employees have a disincentive to seek better, higher-paying jobs for fear of losing their Medicaid health insurance. Lastly, and most importantly, the evidence is clear that having Medicaid health insurance, except in very narrow circumstances, does not provide better health outcomes than being uninsured. In a scientific randomized study in Oregon, researchers found that people with Medicaid health insurance had no better clinical outcomes than a similar group of people without insurance. There are many things that determine health outcomes, including genetics, environmental impacts, and a patient’s commitment to follow-up care. Simply being in the Medicaid program does not guarantee a healthy life. Having Medicaid does improve access to care when compared to being totally uninsured . Montana is one of the states with higher access to care for Medicaid patients when compared to many other states. Medicaid was never intended to provide health insurance for over 20 percent of the U.S. population. Legislators should realize that the ever-increasing financial incentive from Washington, D.C. is simply more government intrusion into Montana’s health care delivery system. Elected officials should work on meaningful health care reform, rather than expanding an entitlement that has limited value and an unsustainable financial future.

Since the COVID pandemic, the number of homeschooling families has jumped nationally and statewide, as many who were forced into it realized the benefits of being able to tailor curriculum to an individual child’s needs, gain a flexible schedule, protect children from bullying and instill one’s family values. We were one of those families and for the past four years, my husband and I have homeschooled our three children with a classical curriculum focused ultimately on building virtuous human beings with the critical thinking skills to excel academically and life skills to be productive members of society. It’s come at considerable time and effort, particularly on my part as I am the primary teacher. I’ve relearned Latin and how to diagram sentences, read countless books, struggled with formal logic and learned to outsource math to an online program for all of our sanity. It costs us about $1,750 per year per child and saves state taxpayers almost $50,000 yearly, as per child spending in Wyoming is about $16,650 per student. Over the course of our schooling in Wyoming, we will save state taxpayers a whopping $316,350. Statewide, homeschoolers and private school families have saved state and federal taxpayers about $707 million over the past decade, according to a report by the Mountain States Policy Center. It only seems fair that those of us not using the tax dollars we pay into the system should receive at least a partial return on our investment during the years our children are learning at home. Last year state legislators moved to make that a reality by passing a law allowing education savings accounts. ESAs, as they are known, give parents money to offset the cost of homeschooling, private school, tutoring and school supplies, among other expenses. Gov. Mark Gordon restricted the law by sharply narrowing its focus to families earning 150% of the federal poverty line, which is $48,000 for a family of four. Those who meet that qualification can apply for $6,000 per child aged 4 through 12th grade. Gov. Gordon line-item vetoed parts of the law because he questioned the constitutionality of the legislation as the Wyoming Constitution prohibits giving money to individuals “except for the necessary support for the poor.” He also questioned the fact that it did not prohibit parents from using the money at religious institutions. And in a March letter to Sec. of State Chuck Gray he said, “I am particularly concerned about the potential impact on students enrolled in ESA programs when funding may need to be directed to cover shortfalls in public schools during economic downturns.” First, parents should have the right to decide what is an appropriate education. ESAs are funded by taxpayers and should be seen as giving parents more freedom to make the best education decisions for their children, not as a handout. Second, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the governor’s second question in 2022. In its landmark Carson v. Makin   decision the court held that Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for otherwise available tuition aid violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. In other words, if the state is going to provide money for parents to choose a non-religious school, it also needs to provide it to parents who would rather choose a religious school. Third, Wyoming, like every state, will not just have to deal with economic booms and busts like prior years, but big changes in demographics as the birth rate has declined 17 percent  since 2007 in the United States. K-12 public school enrollment has dropped 3.2 percent in the state over the past 10 years and further declines will require tough decisions about closing and combining schools in coming years. Having a robust ESA program will make it easier for parents to navigate those imminent changes and find the best options for their children. Wyoming lawmakers should move to make ESAs universal this year as in Arizona, where more than 75,000 students in that state have taken advantage of the opportunity since it was enacted in 2022 while simultaneously saving the state money. What’s not to love about giving parents more liberty to make wise decisions for their children while being fiscally responsible?

You can take it to the bank – taxes will be cut again this year in Idaho. State leaders kicked off the 2025 Legislative Session by making it clear it’s not a matter of if, but which taxes will be reduced and by how much. This continued attention and opportunity for tax relief can be traced to Idaho’s history of fiscally conservative budgeting and strong economic growth. Idaho’s tax relief outlook is the exact opposite of just across the border, where Washington lawmakers are yet again pushing tax increases . Here is what Governor Brad Little said during his State of the State address on January 6 : “Together, we promised Idahoans historic tax relief and delivered back to back to back tax cuts for Idaho families and businesses. We delivered property tax cuts and a new lower flat income tax. We increased the grocery tax rebate, and we stand ready to implement President Trump’s promised tax cuts.  My KEEPING PROMISES plan continues the trend. I am proposing yet another round of tax relief for hardworking Idaho families – $100 million – on top of the $4.6 billion we have already given back to Idahoans over the past five years!” House Speaker Mike Moyle agreed that tax relief is a priority for the coming session. Moyle tweeted : “The Governor proposed $100 million in tax relief for the people of Idaho. Great, that's a good start. I want to see at least three times that by the end of this session.” Further framing the economic outlook for Idaho, lawmakers on the JFAC budget committee received this update on January 7 from the Division of Financial Management : “$4.6B in tax relief since Governor Little took office Least regulated state in the country Top 3 in the country for multiple years for job growth and low unemployment Among top states for population growth (over 22% since 2010) Ranks #1 for small business friendly environment 2nd fastest GDP growth over the last 5 years (#1 earlier in 2024) Idaho has the fastest personal income growth over last 5 years #2 overall strongest economy in the nation” As Idaho lawmakers consider the various tax relief options for 2025, here are some of our recommendations for the session: Expand options for students and families by adopting an education choice tax credit . (66% Idaho Poll support) Increase the grocery tax rebate  and index for inflation.  Improve transparency with a tax transparency website , taxpayer receipt , Truth in Taxation property tax website , and gas tax transparency stickers . (88% Idaho Poll support for Truth in Taxation).   Send voters a constitutional amendment to require a legislative supermajority vote (or voter approval) for tax increases . (72% Idaho Poll support) Adopt revenue growth triggers to authorize automatic tax rate reductions .  Move to a 30-day filing threshold  for remote income tax liability.  Avoid imposing a mileage tax . While we wait to see which taxes are reduced and by how much this year in Idaho, we should appreciate the good economic policies and fiscal discipline that make this debate possible. The “Idaho Way” of prioritizing tax relief leads to a much brighter economic future than the tax-and-spend mentality of our neighbors to the West.

Medicaid expansion defunds public schools. Road construction defunds public schools. Fighting forest fires defunds public schools. Protecting public safety defunds public schools. These statements are, of course, silly. But they are consistent with the newest arguments being made against any expansion of education choice options for families. Past legislative proposals have, in good faith, required funding for any education choice plan be separate from a state's regular K-12 budget. In fact, a tax credit proposal introduced last year in the Idaho legislature proposed a separate, $50 million line item - and didn't touch a cent in the state's K-12 budget. In other words, public schools would still receive the same amount, collectively, even though they’d potentially be educating fewer students. But in a recent editorial opposed to education choice options, the argument was made that "all attempts to wall off public school funding from voucher programs are ultimately futile. The government gets so much money in taxes, and each of those dollars can be used for only one thing." It's a curious argument, to be sure. First, no one has proposed an education choice voucher. Using the word "voucher" to describe previous choice proposals in Idaho is intentionally misleading. Second, the logical conclusion of this argument is that every dollar in a state budget belongs to public education first - something that simply isn't true. As long as the public K-12 education system receives the full allocation for the statutory funding formula, every other cent spent in the budget is a line item for other important priorities. Just like funding for Idaho's Launch program, an education choice plan would include separate funding. In reality, government budgets are a question of priorities. Yes, any future lawmaker could change those priorities. But that’s the way our democratic process is supposed to work - the people elect representatives to adopt priorities. No one would claim, with a straight face, that funding Medicaid expansion, building roads, fighting fires, or protecting public safety defunds public schools. The same holds true for possibly funding a $50 million line item out of more than a $5 billion general fund budget for new education choice options.

As states like Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Washington receive their BEAD funding and additional federal funds towards broadband expansion, creativity in implementation is ripe for the picking. The introduction of a "shot clock" law would be a promising step toward bridging the digital divide while advancing the region’s economic potential. This policy proposes a simple yet impactful mechanism: if local governments fail to act on telecommunications facility siting applications within a reasonable period, the application is automatically approved. For years, rural communities in the Mountain States region have faced a consistent challenge - lack of access to high-speed internet. Whether it's in remote areas of Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, or Montana, the slow pace of broadband expansion has hindered economic growth, educational opportunities, and healthcare access. This "shot clock" requirement would create a clear embrace for this approach. It sets a hard deadline for local governments and agencies to review and approve wireless telecommunications siting applications, e ffectively eliminating bureaucratic delays that have historically slowed down infrastructure development. By ensuring that applications are either approved or denied within a defined time frame, it fosters an environment where the private sector can move quickly to deploy the necessary infrastructure to provide high-speed internet to underserved areas. Additionally, by providing a clear and enforceable timeline, telecommunications companies will have the confidence to invest in broadband expansion projects without fear of prolonged delays or shifting local regulations. This clarity benefits the companies, residents, and businesses that rely on these services to remain competitive in a digital economy. By eliminating unnecessary regulatory barriers, this policy enables market forces to work, allowing private companies to deploy broadband infrastructure where needed most. This will ultimately reduce costs for consumers and businesses, increase competition among internet service providers (ISPs), and improve service quality. As broadband access becomes a critical enabler of economic growth, education, and healthcare, we must take steps to allow private businesses to drive the necessary investments to make this a reality. The benefits of broadband expansion go far beyond internet access. Studies have shown that areas with higher broadband penetration experience greater economic growth. Increased broadband access allows businesses to expand into new markets, promotes innovation, and enhances productivity. The success of the shot clock approach in our region could serve as a blueprint for other states across the country. With substantial federal funds allocated for broadband expansion, policymakers have the opportunity to implement solutions that are both efficient and market-friendly. In the long term, the private sector, armed with clear rules and less regulatory interference, will be able to deliver the connectivity that the region needs to compete in the modern economy. A shot clock requirement is a prime example of how a market-driven approach can create tangible benefits for consumers, businesses, and communities alike. As we move forward, we must continue to focus on solutions that promote economic freedom and innovation. The shot clock requirement is not just about faster internet; it’s about fostering an environment where businesses can grow, communities can thrive, and the free market can drive the development of the critical infrastructure our state and region needs.

The first day of the 2025 Legislative Session in Idaho may well be remembered as the day education choice took a giant step forward. Mountain States Policy Center was honored to host the education choice policy forum in the Lincoln Auditorium at the capitol, attended by 160+ legislators, lobbyists, citizens and business owners. Former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey at the Idaho State Capitol The event featured former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, one of the most successful conservative governors in our nation's history, and the man who led the charge in Arizona for the advancement of education savings accounts (ESA's). He showcased the Arizona reform effort, and urged lawmakers to expand options for families, noting that school choice is not anti-public schools. It’s pro-public education, and a more flexible system to educate our children. The event was followed by a news conference and announcement by Representative Wendy Horman of a bill that will be introduced to fund an education choice tax credit, capped at no more than $50 million per year. Families would be eligible to take a credit worth $5,000 to help cover the cost of education expenses outside of the public school system. “For many, many years, Sen. Den Hartog and I have been partners in trying to advance opportunities for all our children,” Representative Horman said. “We’re not giving up until we succeed.” Just a few hours later, in his State of the State address, Governor Brad Little announced his support for an education choice expansion of the same $50 million number, noting that legislation must be fair and accountable. The proposals by Governor Little and Representative Horman coincide with the release of MSPC's 2024 Idaho Poll, which showed strong support among all political parties for an education choice tax credit. It appears, for the first time, that legislative leaders are in step with the governor's office on at least one plan, increasing the likelihood of an agreement before the end of session. It should be noted that an education choice tax credit is not a voucher, despite the continued effort by some to mislead and call it such. Why is education policy and education choice so important?   First, it's about improving outcomes. Far too many children are being left behind. Far too many are stuck in an educational environment that doesn’t fit their needs. They are truly the square peg that we’re trying to fit in a round hole.   Second, it’s the civil rights issue of our time. As former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice observed, the rich already have education choice. They can afford to send their child to whatever school works best for them. It’s the middle-income families, the families struggling to make ends meet that we’re really talking about.   Third, the overwhelming research shows it works. Providing more options helps advance the educational outcomes of all children. Not just some, all. Parents must be in charge of their child’s education.   Finally, it is one of the largest line items in any state budget. We can no longer accept the premise that if we just increase funding, outcomes will improve.   One thing you will notice is that no one – no one – is talking about shutting down public schools.   Public schools are part of education choice. Public schools and thousands of dedicated teachers work well for many students. Most parents like their public schools and want to keep that public school.   But we must also acknowledge that they might not work for everyone.   I have an autistic son, and if you’ve met one person with autism, you know that you’ve met one person with autism.   Every child is different. Every child learns differently. We must do everything in our power to give them every possible avenue to succeed. Although Idaho has a robust charter school system, it has been more reluctant in the past to further expand choice options for families. Based on day one of the session, however, that may be about to change for the benefit of all students.

The Idaho Artificial Intelligence Working Group met on December 17th, 2024 for the second time since Its formation. With the new year underway, s tate government employees will continue to experiment with and use generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in various ways. This marks a significant step for Idaho but also reveals some challenges in terms of adoption, regulatory concerns, and employee readiness. According to a recent survey conducted by the Idaho Office of Information Technology Services (ITS) , the state is navigating its way through uncharted waters—what ITS Administrator Alberto Gonzalez called the "wild wild West" of AI integration in government. The survey, which included 2,802 responses from employees across 45 state agencies, provides a snapshot of AI’s current use and perceptions in Idaho’s state government. While 65% of employees are aware of generative AI, only 23% reported that their agencies are currently using it. Around 51% of respondents indicated their agencies aren’t using AI yet, while 23% are still exploring its potential applications. These results suggested that, while interest in AI is high, actual implementation has been slow. Many agencies are taking a cautious approach, with concerns over data privacy, ethical implications, and AI's impact on jobs, and rightfully so. The survey highlighted a notable balance of enthusiasm and skepticism about AI’s role in government work. Despite the concerns, the survey results reflect a growing recognition of AI's potential. Many employees have seen AI improve efficiency, enhance service delivery, and support decision-making processes. For example, AI has already been deployed for tasks like automating document generation, analyzing images and videos, and providing customer service through chatbots. These applications are helping Idaho state agencies reduce manual work, save time, and increase overall productivity. Looking ahead, there is significant interest in expanding AI's use across different functions within the state government. Employees have expressed interest in leveraging AI to automate additional processes, improve content creation, and enhance data analysis capabilities. This is seen as an opportunity to streamline operations and address staff shortages by reducing the need for new full-time employees. While the potential benefits of AI are clear, the survey also uncovered widespread concern over the risks associated with its use. Data privacy emerged as the top issue, with employees fearing that sensitive data could be exposed if used improperly in AI systems. There is also an awareness of AI's societal and environmental impacts, raising questions about fairness, bias, and job displacement. One respondent noted, "The more you leverage technology and AI, the greater the efficiencies, but it will also result in fewer full-time employee (FTE) requests or even potential job cuts in the future." There is a strong call for legal and ethical guidance to help agencies navigate these risks. Many employees seek clearer frameworks around AI usage, including regulations on data governance, training, and oversight. The uncertainty surrounding the ethical implications of AI use is one of the main barriers to faster adoption. The Idaho Legislature’s AI Working Group met twice in 2024 and is attempting to address these concerns head-on. The group, comprised of state lawmakers and key stakeholders, is focused on studying AI’s potential role in Idaho’s governance and identifying areas for potential legislation. The committee plans to continue gathering feedback and providing legal and ethical guidelines to ensure that AI is used responsibly. This includes addressing key areas like data governance, training, and collaboration across state agencies. With AI still in its early stages of adoption, Idaho aims to pilot key initiatives in select agencies and track the outcomes before scaling the technology statewide. To maximize the potential of AI in Idaho’s state government, agencies should prioritize its integration into administrative and routine tasks that currently consume significant employee time. AI has proven to be highly effective in automating document generation, data entry, and other repetitive functions that do not require complex decision-making. By leveraging AI for these tasks, agencies can free up valuable time for employees to focus on more critical, strategic work. For instance, AI can be used to automate reports, schedule meetings, and process forms. These tasks are often tedious and time-consuming but necessary for the smooth operation of government functions. To ensure quality and accountability, AI-generated work should be reviewed by a manager or designated employee before final approval. This approach allows agencies to capitalize on the efficiency of AI while maintaining oversight and ensuring that work meets the necessary standards. By adopting AI for these routine functions, Idaho’s state agencies can significantly reduce administrative burdens, increase overall productivity, and redirect human resources toward more complex and impactful work. As AI technology continues to evolve, expanding its use across administrative tasks will be an essential step in modernizing government operations and ensuring that state employees can perform at their highest potential. While AI promises significant benefits in terms of efficiency and productivity, it is equally important to ensure that it is used securely and protects user data. The 2025 Legislative Session will likely be pivotal in shaping the direction of AI’s role in Idaho’s government, balancing the excitement for innovation with the need for proper guidance and safeguards. As Gonzalez highlighted, the future of AI in Idaho may involve major efficiencies, but only with careful planning and human oversight.