Imagine going to work and being forced to pay a fee from every paycheck for a service you don’t want. Frustration would be a mild reaction, outrage a more understandable one. Month after month, paycheck after paycheck, a portion of your wages would go to support a private organization you disagree with. This is the position many union members find themselves in across the country. The First Amendment of the United States protects the rights of free speech and the courts have repeatedly affirmed this right naturally extends to freedom of association. Unfortunately, for workers in 24 states, because these states lack a right-to-work law, unions have found a workaround from the freedom of association. Forced union membership is as undemocratic as it sounds. No American can be legally forced to join a formal union, but unions have historically found a way to protect their pocketbooks from uninterested members. In non-right-to-work states, unions can require companies to charge ‘non-member fees’ as part of the employment conditions. These non-member fees are often the equivalent (or so close) to the member fee, that there is no point in opting out of membership. A right-to-work law prevents these compulsory private membership practices. Instead of mandating that all workers in certain fields and careers must be members and pay the union dues, right-to-work states recognize that not all workers may agree with the practices of the unions. In right-to-work states, unions must earn the membership dues of their members. Guarding this protection within state constitutions is an important policy protection. Right-to-work laws stem from the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, Section 14B which prevented unions from requiring companies to fire workers who refused to join the union. After its passage, many states adopted right-to-work laws. In the last fifteen years, five states have also adopted the policy. Idaho and Wyoming are right-to-work states that adopted their statutory protections decades ago. Wyoming became a right-to-work state in 1963 and Idaho in 1985. Unfortunately, for workers in Montana and Washington, they remain unprotected and workers can be subject to union leadership they disagree with. Right-to-work laws are not a tool used to break up unions, but to protect workers from unions that are taking membership dues from members who disagree with union political practices and efforts. The law also protects non-members from being fired simply because they do not join a union. Instead of fighting against right-to-work laws, unions should strengthen their efforts to recruit new members by listening and following the direction of dues-paying members. These laws create a balance between worker rights and union interests. No worker should be beholden to a private organization they disagree with to maintain employment. The propaganda against right-to-work stems from organized labor’s fear of losing revenues based on compulsory membership. Union leadership argues that right-to-work destroys collective bargaining, decreases wages, increases poverty, and allows free riders. All of these are myths. If collective bargaining is destroyed it is only the fault of the union not representing employees effectively. Effective unions will maintain their membership, whereas ineffective unions relying on compulsory membership and delivering poor service or questionable political activity will have earned their demise. Studies claiming lower wages and higher poverty questionably rely on assumptions that assume correlation is causation. Some studies that dive deeper into the data and look at the cost of living assumptions turn these claims around and find that the rates do not vary significantly between right-to-work and non-right-to-work states. In fact, a recent Harvard Study found that people living in RTW areas have higher employment, higher labor force participation, lower disability receipts, and higher population growth because of the attractive economy. All these factors are associated with lower childhood poverty rates in RTW locations. An interesting note is that a labor union's obligation to represent all employees (non-members too) is self-inflicted. If unions were willing to part with their hold on exclusive workplace representation, the free-rider argument would be pointless. Over the last forty years, union membership has fallen from 20.1 percent in 1983 to 10.0 percent in 2023. There are about 14 million workers belonging to unions in the United States. Public-sector workers are more likely to belong to unions at 32.5 percent, whereas private-sector workers are less likely at 6.0 percent. There is a big difference between public and private sector unions. As noted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in this 1937 letter to the National Federation of Federal Employees: “All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters. Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees.” Union membership changes have differed between the private and public sectors. Private sector union membership has fallen from 16.8 percent in 1983, a ten percent drop over 40 years.  Public sector membership remained relatively constant until 2011 but has decreased by five percent in the last 12 years from 37 percent in 2011 to 32.5 percent today. The share of union workers in right-to-work states is less than half (6%) of non-right-to-work states (13%). There are 26 states now protecting the fundamental rights of speech and association through right-to-work laws. Of these 26 states, 10 have gone beyond statutory laws, protecting worker freedom directly in their state constitutions. Tennessee is the most recent state to vote for a constitutional amendment (2022), joining 9 other states with constitutional safeguards. In November 2022, Amendment 1 won in all 95 counties in Tennessee and showed that workers want to be able to make their own choices concerning union membership. Nearly 70 percent of Tennessee voters agreed with protecting the right to work in the state constitution. Amending the state constitution to include worker freedom, protects the existing right-to-work law from future political changes that would disadvantage workers to favor union leaders. A strong right-to-work policy would add language to a state constitution making it unlawful for any person to be denied employment because they want to resign or refuse to join or affiliate with any labor union or employee organization. A benefit of right-to-work constitutional amendments is the opportunity for voters to cast their opinions. In Tennessee, voters agreed with the measure by a 2-1 margin showing how important freedom of association is to a majority of Americans. Lawmakers in our region should do the same and join the 10 other states with strong constitutional right-to-work protections for workers and the economy.

Policies matter and they have real consequence. Perhaps the starkest example of this is the ability of a citizen to vote with their feet. The U.S. Census Bureau’s latest population estimates provide near real-time data on the locations where citizens are thriving and the locations where lawmakers are suffocating opportunity. Not surprisingly, Idaho and Montana remain two of the fastest growing states in the nation. Florida, Utah and Tennessee are also seeing largest increases in population growth. High tax, high regulation states including California, Illinois and New York are all seeing declines. A deeper dive finds even more interesting data at the county and city level. Idaho’s two largest counties – Ada and Canyon – both experienced large increases year over year. But Idaho’s largest city has seen a decline in its population. Meantime, Meridian and Nampa both continue to show substantial growth. Montana’s three largest cities are growing, albeit slower than one might expect. Meantime, the city of Spokane’s population is stagnant, while the city of Spokane Valley continues to show modest increases. We know what drives growth, and what stifles it. Research has consistently shown people move to states and communities that provide high-quality services, low taxes and few regulations. Policymakers should make sure they are offering this trifecta.

Americans view health insurance much differently than other types of insurance. When a person says that they have great health insurance, what they really mean is that their insurance covers a whole host of medical problems – eye wear, dental, preventive care, and routine check-ups. Other forms of insurance, for example homeowners, cover major problems, but routine issues, like mowing the lawn and cleaning the gutters are covered by out-of-pocket expenditures. Compounding this difference between health insurance and other types of insurance are state and federal mandates that require policies to cover various medical problems. The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, requires every health insurance policy to contain ten specific mandates. Each state has its own mandates that in many cases overlap the federal mandates. As of several years ago, Wyoming had 32 health benefit and provider mandates, Montana had 31, and Idaho had 10. Instead of government-mandated “insurance” and entitlement programs that attempt to cover every possible health-related activity, health coverage needs to work like other forms of indemnity insurance used to mitigate risk, such as car, homeowners, and life insurance. Just as it makes little sense to use insurance to pay for gas or to mow the lawn, state and federal governments need to get away from the idea that health insurance should cover all our health-related events. True indemnity insurance should be there for catastrophes and emergencies. Routine day-to-day health services should be paid for out-of-pocket as needed. Each health care mandate adds to the overall cost of health insurance. The reality is that not everyone needs all of the required mandates. For example, a healthy, unmarried thirty-year-old man does not need obstetrical coverage, yet he is paying for it in his health insurance plan. Women do not need tests to screen for prostate cancer. Mandates are a classic example of politically powerful interest groups lobbying elected officials to include payment for their services in every insurance policy. Mandates restrict competition, drive up prices, and greatly restrict choices for patients. Supporters of mandates say no one can predict a patient’s future needs, so the government should require people by law to buy expensive coverage. It is true that the future is unknown, but a catastrophic, high-deductible insurance plan can be designed to cover any future major medical problem. Affordable auto and homeowner insurance policies, except in very unusual circumstances, cover any and all major problems and provide individuals and families with millions of dollars of coverage should the need arise. In addition, health savings accounts (HSA) allow people to save money for day-to-day health care expenses. These accounts require a person or family to purchase a high-deductible catastrophic policy to cover high-dollar medical expenses, but allow a tax-advantaged savings account to save for routine medical-related purchases. Savings can be accumulated from year to year and the balance in an individual’s personal account can be taken from one job to another. As mentioned above, states vary in the number of mandates required. Unlike other forms of insurance, health insurance is sold on a state-by-state basis. A reasonable first step would be to allow the interstate purchase of health insurance. Patients would have a huge increase in their choices and the market would become much more competitive. The health coverage that some state governments mandate would still be available, but consumers would make their own decision about whether to buy it. Americans across the political spectrum agree that the fundamental problem with health care in the United States is the ever-increasing cost. Reducing or eliminating government health insurance mandates altogether would be a definite move to lowering these costs.

Although Washington already has a Top Two open primary process, there have been proposals in recent years to try to impose Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in the state again. A previous local experiment with RCV was quickly repealed by 71% of Pierce County voters. Concerned about the new RCV proposals, Washington’s Secretary of State Steve Hobbs recently penned a statewide op-ed titled: “Ranked-choice voting sounds good. But here’s why it would disenfranchise voters.” WA’s Secretary of State Hobbs and Spokane County Auditor Vicky Dalton wrote: “Before signing onto ranked-choice voting, we ask that you listen to the experts who ensure every Washington voter counts. It is not simple to convert elections from checking one box to ranking several choices. Washington’s developmentally disabled adults, including Secretary Hobbs’ son, can and do vote. For many people, it requires significant effort to pick one candidate per race. Ranking multiple choices is a more complicated task. People new to American democracy face similar challenges to understanding the system. Secretary Hobbs’ mother faced this struggle as a new immigrant. Even advocates of changing voting methods have conceded that 29% of voters don’t rank multiple candidates in ranked-choice elections. This means nearly a third of ballots have reduced influence, an unacceptable deprivation. In findings released earlier this year, Princeton University professor Nolan McCarty examined ranked-choice elections in New York City and Alaska and found that minority voters are disproportionately shortchanged by this construct.” Here is a quote from the Princeton University professor who conducted the RCV study referenced by Secretary Hobbs: “In recent years, ranked choice voting has been hyped as a solution to many perceived problems in American elections. Unfortunately, the hype has often outpaced the evidence. My research raises major concerns about whether RCV may work to further reduce the electoral influence of racial and ethnic minority communities.” These comments are similar to what former California Governor Jerry Brown said when vetoing a ranked-choice voting bill in 2016: “In a time when we want to encourage more voter participation, we need to keep voting simple. Ranked-choice voting is overly complicated and confusing. I believe it deprives voters of genuinely informed choice.” Current RCV proponents point to a 2020 election that saw 50.55% of voters in Alaska adopt a Top 4 and ranked-choice voting ballot measure. That new election process has been so unpopular, however, Alaska voters will now have the opportunity this fall to repeal it with the certification of a new ballot measure. As the debate around RCV continues across our region, it is important to remember that there is a big difference between open primaries and ranked-choice voting. Moving to a clean open primary is a debate worth having (preferably a Top Two). Adopting open primaries, however, need not be limited to a take-it-or-leave-it proposition tied to the controversy of ranked-choice voting.

A trend. A fad. Feel-good legislation. Call plastic bag bans whatever you want, just don’t call them effective environmental policy. Activists in Missoula think otherwise. The group “Families for a Livable Climate Beyond Plastics” have submitted a petition to the Missoula elections office to put an initiative on the ballot this fall that would regulate single-use plastics. Plastic bags would be banned, as would foam cups, containers and packing peanuts. Restaurants and vendors would also be banned from giving out plastic straws unless they are specifically requested. If adopted, would they make an environmental difference? The research tells us no. In fact, much of the research shows plastic bags can actually be one of the most environmentally friendly options. There are numerous reasons for this. First, plastic bags are reusable. Think about how many times you’ve reused a plastic bag to take a lunch to work, to clean up after your dog, or to fill a trash container in your bathroom. Without those bags available, consumers look for alternatives and end up buying more plastic bags. The school of Forestry and Natural Resources at the University of Georgia released a study last year. The study found California communities with bag policies saw sales of 4-gallon trash bags increase by 55% to 75%, and sales of 8-gallon trash bags increase 87% to 110%. These results echo earlier studies that also showed increases in sales of smaller plastic trash bags. Second, the plastic bag alternatives are not much better. The United Kingdom’s Environment Agency released a report in 2011 that highlighted the carbon impact of paper, reusable plastic, and cotton bags is higher than single-use plastic bags. In fact, scientists said you’d need to reuse a cotton bag more than 130 times to have an impact on the environment. Danish researchers had similar findings. Environmental policy expert Todd Myers wrote this for RealClearScience: "One of the most commonly heard claims is that plastic bags, and other plastic, have created the “Pacific Garbage Patch.” Some claim it is twice the size of Texas. This is simply false. Last year, Oregon State University reported that the actual amount is less than one percent the size of Texas. Oceanography professor Angel White sent out a release last year saying, “There is no doubt that the amount of plastic in the world’s oceans is troubling, but this kind of exaggeration undermines the credibility of scientists.” Third, there are sanitation concerns. Most people who carry around reusable, cloth bags do not necessarily take care to make sure the bag is clean. Some may keep the bag in their backseat or the trunk of their vehicle. Others might only wash the bag once a month. The concern about sanitation was especially high during the COVID-19 pandemic, when a number of states that had adopted bans decided to hold off because of hygiene concerns. So, while plastic bag bans may make policymakers feel good, the research shows they are a very ineffective way to protect the environment and can actually do more harm than good.

Another anti-choice argument has fallen. New research from the Education Psychology Review indicates students who attend private and parochial schools perform much better when it comes to obtaining well-rounded civics knowledge. Analysts looked at four different categories to make their determination: Political tolerance - an individual’s willingness to respect the rights and opinions of people who are different from them Political participation - a person’s willingness to engage in the activities of self-government Civic knowledge and skills - a set of understandings and abilities widely viewed as conducive to self-government Voluntarism and social capital - one’s involvement in activities that benefit the broader community and the depth of one’s community attachments The meta-analysis looked at the results of more than 60 studies from across the globe. In total, the data shows many more positive than negative results. "Religious private schooling, particularly, is strongly associated with positive civic outcomes. The evidence is especially strong that private schooling is correlated with higher levels of political tolerance and political knowledge and skills. We discuss heterogeneities, robustness checks, and implications." Some claim that, because public schools are government controlled, they can do a better job at producing civics outcomes. In fact, those opposed to school choice have often used this argument, saying that choice would "destroy democracy." But civics education has been downright disastrous in the United States, especially over the past decade. The 2022 testing released by the National Assessment Governing Board showed only 22% of eighth graders were proficient in civics. A well-rounded education is about more than just test scores. Schooling has a critical role to play in nurturing an informed, tolerant and democratic citizenry. Are public schools meeting that standard?

Here's the good news: the U.S. Supreme Court has, for all intents and purposes, struck down the core of the so-called Blaine Amendments as they relate to education choice options. As a result, dozens of states with Blaine Amendments currently offer families the options of Education Savings Accounts or education choice tax credits. The bad news is three fold: many states have their own Blaine language, most citizens don't know what a Blaine Amendment is, and even fewer know how policymakers are using its bigoted foundation as an excuse to block children who need more education options. Last month brought news that a new lawsuit is challenging the Blaine Amendment in Idaho. Like many other states (more than two-thirds, to be exact), Idaho adopted its Blaine Amendment at the time of statehood in 1890. The language, which was debated as a federal constitutional amendment as well, essentially prohibits the use of state funds for any religious purposes. "Neither the legislature nor any county, city, town, township, school district, or other public corporation, shall ever make any appropriation, or pay from any public fund or moneys whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian or religious society, or for any sectarian or religious purpose, or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church, sectarian or religious denomination whatsoever..." -Article IX, Section 5, Idaho State Constitution Why was this such an issue in the country at the time of adoption in the 19th century? Put simply, it was fear of Catholics. As the Catholic population grew, bigotry aimed to keep public funds in schools that were teaching - even praying - under a Protestant umbrella. More than 130 years later, opponents of additional education options for children have used the outdated relic of the Blaine Amendments as an excuse to block any legislation that might expand education options for families - with one notable, local exception (more on that in a moment). Blaine Amendments, however, have not stopped many states from providing families with more education choice options. Two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases have curtailed Blaine Amendment restrictions: Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020) and Carson v. Makin (2022). The Espinoza decision held that government attempts to exclude religious schools from public scholarship or tax credits are subject to strict scrutiny, meaning lawmakers must prove they have a “compelling interest” in restricting the free exercise of religion of scholarship or tax credit recipients. The Carson majority held that “a neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause." In other words, states cannot fall back on their Blaine Amendments to justify prohibitions on public funding of schools solely due to their religion. In addition, a state cannot discriminate against religious beneficiaries of public scholarships or tax credits by forbidding them from using those benefits at religious schools. As the Institute for Justice writes, “these obstacles to educational freedom are now largely a dead letter.” Each state's Blaine Amendment is different in scope and impact. But if the opponents of additional education choice options are correct, it could be argued that Idaho is already violating its Blaine Amendment. Careful readers will notice the language in the Idaho constitution includes "college, university or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church, sectarian or religious denomination whatsoever..." As we've previously noted, the successful Idaho Launch program does exactly that. Students receive state help to cover about 80% of the cost of their college tuition. Near the top of the list of institutions where the grants for Idaho Launch can be used and where students have applied are Brigham Young University-Idaho, a private, religious school run by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Northwest Nazarene University is another private, religious institution on the list. So, using the same arguments of those opposing education choice, how does this not violate the Blaine Amendment? Proponents may say the funds are not going directly to the institution, but rather to students and families. And that's true - but that's exactly what K-12 education choice options would do. The allocation of public funds in this context is determined by the private choices of individuals, rather than any direct governmental action to funnel public resources into religious or private educational institutions. The courts have underscored that this mechanism does not result in the state endorsing or establishing any religion, thus maintaining a clear separation between church and state. Anyone who still uses Blaine Amendments as an excuse to block education reform is stuck in a 19th century mindset. It is past time to commit to the educational needs of every child.

Our region is at a critical time in its energy landscapes, navigating a complex network of resources, policies, and environmental concerns. This latest winter was a great case study for the reliability problem of intermittent green sources that are being pushed nationwide. In Montana, Northwestern Energy spokesperson Jo Dee Black commented in January, “Wind and solar generation could not produce much if any, power during the extreme cold.” In Washington, Grant County PUD stated, “frigid temperatures throughout Grant County and the Pacific Northwest pushed energy use to record levels, strained many regional electric grids, and put a heavy draw on our region’s capacity to generate electricity.” The same problem occurs during periods of extreme heat. As wind-generated electricity fails during this time, hydropower picks up the slack. With a national movement to breach the Snake River dams, legislators need to take this concern seriously. With that in mind, let’s take a look at the current energy portfolios in the Mountain States. Washington State is heavily dependent on hydroelectric energy. In their efforts to replace hydroelectric energy, Washington lawmakers have been pushing for other renewable sources including solar and wind. The state also has a goal of 100% zero-emissions electricity by 2045. In this desired timeline, all electric utilities must eliminate coal-fired generation serving Washington state customers by 2025. During extreme weather events, these intermittent energy sources have proven to not be reliable. Wind specifically has proven to disappear when there are extremely high or low temperatures. While these diversification efforts of the power grid are understandable, they are coming at the expense of reliable baseload power like natural gas, nuclear, and hydro. Idaho runs on natural gas, hydroelectric, and other renewable sources like wind and solar. In-state coal production is minimal, but Idaho's utilities bring in electricity from coal-fired power plants in neighboring states. However, Idaho's largest electric utility plans to end its coal-fired power generation purchases by 2028. The Snake River dams are still crucial for Idaho’s energy grid. Realizing this, the Idaho legislature this year passed a joint memorial stating that it opposes the removal or breaching of the dams on the Columbia-Snake River System and its tributaries. The legislature also passed a resolution in support of the Idaho National Laboratory which is a U.S. Department of Energy laboratory that researches nuclear and renewable energy sources. Montana has a heavier portion of coal-generated energy than Washington State or Idaho. Between 1986 and 2020, coal-fired generation provided most of the electricity produced in the state due to the completion of the Colstrip Plant. But now the future of coal generation in Montana is changing. Since then, hydroelectric dams have proven to be an important resource in Montana’s energy generation mix and produced half of the state’s net electric generation in 2021. Also in 2021, Montana ranked sixth among all states for power generated by hydroelectric dams. Behind Texas, Wyoming stands as the second largest exporter of energy in the nation, as it produces 12 times more energy than the state consumes. The state is generating the most coal-fired energy out of the Mountain States. Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon is promoting an energy policy agenda that features advances in wind and nuclear technology. In 2022, the Wyoming Energy Authority signed a memorandum of understanding agreeing to collaborate on the research, development, demonstration, and deployment of nuclear energy technologies. An upcoming challenge is that PacifiCorp intends to retire 14 of its 22 active coal units by 2030 and another five by 2040 and plans to add more than 3,600 megawatts of wind, more than 5,600 megawatts of solar, and around 6,700 megawatts of battery storage. With the intermittent nature of these sources coupled with the current energy velocity that Wyoming is producing, this decision could prove to be consequential. The energy landscapes of Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming reflect a complex interplay of resources, policies, and regional dynamics. From the heavy reliance on hydroelectric power in Washington to the historic dominance of coal-fired generation in Montana and Wyoming, each state faces its own set of energy transitions and policy dilemmas. Looking ahead, the Mountain States have an opportunity to lead the way toward a reliable, sustainable, and affordable energy sector. By embracing baseload sources like natural gas, hydro, and nuclear these states can continue towards a more prosperous and resilient future. As these states navigate the complexities of the energy transition, sustainability, and affordability, they must be wary of using intermittent sources to replace reliable baseload power.

As the debate over Universal Service Fees on internet service continues, recent official comments shed light on the concerns facing states like Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Washington. The imposition of Universal Service Fees could have significant implications for broadband affordability and market dynamics, especially when grappling with minimum pricing policies demanding a low-cost option. The good news is that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided not to impose Universal Service Fees on internet service - for now. FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington stated: “…when Americans look to Congress and the Commission for leadership on modernizing the USF (Universal Service Fees), we must continue to consider what measures will best sustain the system for another generation and avoid expedient but ineffective short-term measures.” Proponents of imposing similar fees on broadband argue for spreading the burden more evenly across telecommunications services and bolstering the USF. However, such measures risk disrupting the stability of the current system and burdening consumers with additional costs. When asked about "Universal Service Fees," Ramón S. Hobdey-Sánchez, the State Broadband Program Manager at the Idaho Office of Broadband, stated that there had not been federal pressure to implement such programs within Idaho's borders. However, inquiries from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) regarding the calculation of a low-cost option on the state's scoring matrix raise questions about potential future federal requirements. In distinguishing between USF's and minimum pricing requirements, it's important to recognize their distinct roles and implications within the broadband landscape. Universal Service Fees primarily aim to fund programs that promote universal access to telecommunications services, ensuring that all Americans, regardless of location or income level, have access to essential communication tools. Minimum pricing requirements set a floor price for broadband services, often intended to prevent predatory pricing practices and ensure a baseline level of service quality. However, the difference between intention and reality can be stark. Within a competitive market, providers are incentivized to offer affordable and accessible services to attract and retain customers. Imposing Universal Service Fees or minimum pricing requirements could distort this competition and lead to inefficiencies. While both mechanisms seek to address different aspects of the broadband market, their goals can be similar in their impact on affordability and market dynamics. Striking a balance between fostering competition and ensuring equitable access to broadband services remains a central challenge for policymakers faced with these complex issues. In response to NTIA inquiries, Hobdey-Sánchez clarified that Idaho does not set or require a baseline fee, and its current low-cost option on the state's scoring matrix is based on the 2023 FCC Urban Rate Survey for service of 100/20Mbps. Idaho's current low-cost option Is at $70. To provide an example, for broadband service with 100/20 Mbps speeds and an unlimited monthly usage allowance, the reasonable comparability benchmark for the U.S. is $105.03, and the benchmark for Alaska is $124.06. As states in our region navigate the complexities of broadband affordability and access, it is essential to prioritize transparency, accountability, and consumer welfare in regulatory decision-making.

In an era of moving towards more electrification and increasing power demand, it makes no sense to remove a clean, renewable power source. Hydropower is an important provider of reliable and clean energy for everyone in the Northwest. Many dams also provide important baseload power reliability to help a stressed energy grid during periods of extreme hot or cold. The Snake River dams are critical to the infrastructure of our region, providing not only reliable power but also many other economic benefits. Removing these dams would have many negative impacts on our region. You don't have to take my word for it. Here are some of the findings from the multi-year public process in 2020 conducted by The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and Bonneville Power Administration to produce a comprehensive scientific review of the issues surrounding the Snake River dams and possible breaching: “[Dam breaching] would not meet the objective to Provide a Reliable and Economic Power Supply . . . The lower Snake River projects provide more than 2,000 MW of sustained peaking capabilities during the winter, and a quarter of the federal power system’s current reserves holding capability. The dams play an important role in maintaining reliability in the production of power used to supply load in the Pacific Northwest. Their flexibility and dispatchability are valuable components of the CRS. [Dam breaching] would more than double the region’s risk of power shortages…” “The costs of an expanded zero-carbon resource portfolio designed to replace the full capability of the four lower Snake River dams would be significant: up to twice the $400 million assumed to maintain regional reliability. Additional variables such as resource financing uncertainties and the uncertainty in the cost and availability of demand response add to this rate sensitivity. If Bonneville had to replace the four lower Snake River projects’ full capability with zero-carbon resources, the rate pressure could be up to 50% on wholesale power rates.” “The lower Snake River shallow draft navigation channel would no longer be available, eliminating commercial navigation to multiple port facilities on the lower Snake River… As a result, the cost to transport goods to market would increase.” “Under this scenario, increases in vehicular accident rates, highway traffic and congestion would occur. In addition, additional wear and tear on roadways could result in additional road repair costs of up to $10 million annually.” “Farmers could also experience increased production costs associated with higher transportation costs for upriver movements (i.e., fertilizer, crops). There would be additional demands on existing road and rail infrastructure as well as at barging facilities near the Tri-Cities, Washington, increasing traffic and air pollution.” “Adverse regional economic effects would occur as the jobs and income provided by the four primary commercial navigation ports would be curtailed, including the Port of Lewiston, the Port of Clarkston, the Port of Whitman County (Wilma, Almota, Central Ferry), and the Port of Garfield.” “Despite the major benefits to fish expected from [dam breaching], this alternative was not identified as the Preferred Alternative due to the adverse impacts to other resources such as transportation, power reliability and affordability, and greenhouse gas emissions.” This multi-year scientific and public review process, which was undertaken by both a Democrat and Republican administration, made one thing abundantly clear: dam breaching on the lower Snake River is completely unnecessary and unwarranted. In addition, Congress authorized these dams, and only Congress has the power to remove them. Thankfully, many of the congressional members elected to the areas surrounding the Snake River dams are working to protect the economic and environmental benefits they provide. This includes local lawmakers as well. The Idaho legislature this year adopted SJM 103, to make it clear that the state is dam proud and strongly supports the clean renewable hydro baseload power, navigation, and irrigation provided by the Snake River dams. The Idaho Legislature declared: “the State of Idaho opposes any actions to degrade the functionality, in whole or in part, to remove or breach any dams on the Columbia-Snake River System or its tributaries…” Protecting the Snake River dams and other federal water infrastructure is pivotal to the Northwest. We must remain dam strong for the benefit of our region.

The Sawtooth Leadership Academy is a project of Mountain States Policy Center. The yearly, limited enrollment and no-cost program is dedicated to broadening the perspectives of emerging young minds in the principles of free markets, civics, and civility. High school and college applicants are selected each year to participate in six courses, both in-person and virtually. Each participant will complete an approved study to be published by Mountain States Policy Center and featured at MSPC's gala dinner events. At least one student will receive a $5,000 scholarship. The 2024 class features six students. Sindhu Surapaneni Sindhu Surapaneni is a vibrant cultural enthusiast and budding entrepreneur who has been fostering her passions since a tender age. With a diverse array of talents, including storytelling, TEDx speaking, art instruction, Bollywood dance instruction, and henna artistry, Sindhu has made a remarkable impact at just 14 years old. Amidst the challenges of the pandemic, Sindhu took the initiative to provide over 400 free art sessions, reaching children worldwide through online platforms. Her entrepreneurial spirit led her to donate over $22,000 to local charities, supporting low-income families in her community. As the founder and president of Imaginations2Creation, a non-profit dedicated to spreading positivity through art, Sindhu has successfully implemented projects promoting inclusion in schools and organizations across multiple states. Beyond her creative pursuits, Sindhu dedicates her time to tutoring math, teaching Bollywood dance, and engaging in philanthropic endeavors, such as providing bedding, pajamas, and warm clothing to those in need. Recognized for her outstanding contributions, Sindhu has garnered numerous accolades, including being crowned Miss Spokane Valley 2024 and receiving prestigious awards like the Gold Presidential Volunteer Service Award and the Social Advocacy Award. Her story has been featured extensively in local and international media, inspiring others to join her mission of making a difference through compassion and creativity. Jonas Yengst Jonas Yengst, a freshman at The Ambrose Bridge School, epitomizes versatility and ambition. Balancing his interests in the stock market, project work, and soccer, Jonas seamlessly integrates his passions into his daily routine. Whether he's trading stocks in the morning, refereeing soccer matches in the afternoon, or delving into Roman History, Jonas approaches each endeavor with enthusiasm and dedication. With aspirations of entrepreneurship and legislative involvement, Jonas envisions a future where he can contribute to his community through volunteer work and establish his own investment company. Despite being far from his California roots, soccer remains a constant source of joy and motivation for Jonas, serving as a reminder of the rewards of perseverance and hard work. Christopher Sheftic Christopher Sheftic, a freshman at Moscow High School, stands out as a scholar and leader in his community. His academic achievements, coupled with his active involvement in extracurricular activities like Business Professionals of America and National History Day, underscore his commitment to excellence and learning. Having lived in various states due to his father's military service, Christopher has embraced opportunities to engage with diverse communities and pursue his interests, such as running his own lawn mowing business and participating in math competitions. Looking ahead, Christopher looks forward to continuing his academic journey at Lake City High School and exploring his passions for cars, basketball, and economics. Avery Nichols Avery Nichols, a driven 14-year-old from Meridian, Idaho, embodies a spirit of service and dedication to his community. Through his involvement in student government, legislative campaigns, and volunteer work, Avery has demonstrated a strong commitment to making a positive impact in the lives of others. With a diverse range of interests, including reading, woodworking, and playing guitar, Avery is not only passionate about personal growth but also actively engages in local politics and anti-vaping advocacy. As a certified community trainer for CATCH My Breath, Avery is poised to educate and empower younger generations to make healthy choices. Joseph Fruehauf Joseph Fruehauf, a graduating student with a Bachelor's in Political Science and Financial Economics from Northwest Nazarene University, is driven by a desire to serve his community and advocate for free enterprise and liberty. Through his work at a public affairs and consulting firm in Boise, Joseph channels his passion for business and public service into meaningful contributions to society. With ambitions to pursue a career as a Business Analyst or Management Analyst, Joseph aims to leverage his skills and knowledge to effect positive change in the realms of law and politics. Grounded in his Christian values, Joseph is committed to upholding principles of integrity and empowerment in all his endeavors. Madison Schmidt Madison Schmidt, a junior at Boise State University, is a dedicated student with a passion for political science and a keen interest in public policy. Originally from San Diego, Madison's move to Idaho sparked her enthusiasm for community engagement and advocacy. Currently serving as a lobbying intern, Madison is actively involved in shaping policies related to education, health, welfare, and housing, with a steadfast commitment to improving the lives of Idahoans. Inspired by her experiences, Madison aspires to pursue a career in lobbying or government, where she can continue to advocate for positive change and community welfare.

It's a familiar refrain in the conversation over education reform, especially in the Mountain States. On the one hand, policymakers, activists, school leaders and even those running for office say they are in favor of education choice. On the other, they oppose expansion of education choice options. A head-scratching phenomenon, to be sure - the equivalent of being allowed to buy any vehicle you want, so long as it's a black Ford. For example, we often see comments from some policymakers about “wholeheartedly” supporting parents pursuing the education options they want for their children, while at the same time opposing the types of education choice reforms currently advancing in dozens of states across the country. Some even claim to be proud of choice, while actively opposing any more options. It is true that existing options in Idaho currently include open enrollment public schools, charter schools, and magnet schools. But Idaho lags behind other states in providing additional choices including ideas such as Education Savings Accounts or tax credits that would help children advance education needs outside the government run system. The number of states providing parents and students with the option for Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), education choice tax credits, or an education tax scholarship has now grown to 29. Several states are also in the process of expanding their existing education choice programs to cover even more students. Here is the current map of the 29 states with these education choice options: Idaho has fallen precipitously (nine spots in the past year alone) in The Heritage Foundation's yearly education report card. In fact, just this year, Idaho ranked 29th, behind even Vermont, D.C. and Pennsylvania. Heritage writes: "Idaho does well in allowing families the freedom to choose among charter schools and district schools, but could do much more to expand private education choice. Idaho respects the autonomy of homeschooling families. Idaho could improve its ranking by enacting a K–12 education savings account (ESA) policy and making it easier for charter schools to open and operate." There are nearly 200 empirical studies that show the impact of permitting more options. More than 80% are positive. No two children learn the same way. Education must constantly reform. Sooner or later, additional options will be available. The federal government may even step in. But every day lawmakers wait is a day another child may fall behind. As Yoda famously noted in the Star Wars movies, when it comes to supporting education choice options for families and students: “Do. Or do not. There is no try.”

Note: This is a joint Mountain States Policy Center op-ed with U.S. Congressman Mike Simpson (Idaho) American farmers feel like the little red hen working alone to grow the wheat, mill the flour, and make the bread, as they struggle to meet labor demands across sectors. Few domestic workers find agricultural employment attractive and our nation’s visa program to hire foreign workers for agricultural work simply does not work for employers or employees. From spring pruning to fall harvest farm labor demands go unmet across every crop and region, as workers both unwilling and willing, sit idly by wondering who will grow the bread. Farmers and ranchers in the United States have grown reliant on the H-2A visa program to hire temporary foreign workers due to the absence of American workers willing to take farm jobs. H-2A visas grant a pathway for farmers to address labor shortages and the reliance on the program is only growing. H-2A visa participation grew by 226% from 2010 to 2019. Despite an increase from 79,000 workers in 2010 to 258,000 in 2019, farms are still short on workers and some farms needing year-round employees, like dairies, are barred from the program. As for the farms feeling like the little red hen, those operations have had to wait for decades as legislation designed to make H-2A workable for agriculture go unapproved by the U.S. Senate. Instead, the most recent government effort to ‘fix’ the ag labor market came from the Biden-Harris administration in the fall of 2023, in an obscure grant program that promises financial relief if farm operations are willing to adopt costly employment practices. The Farm Labor Stabilization and Protection Pilot Program throws $65 million of taxpayer money at an issue that in the real world requires actual labor to solve the problem, not dollar signs. Throwing hard-earned taxpayer money at a government-created issue isn’t solving the problem but only masking the consequences. In the story of the little red hen, money by itself cannot grow the wheat, to make the flour, to make the bread. It took the physical hard work of the hen. That is the solution American food security needs today. We need legislation that allows the physical hard work of agriculture to continue unhindered by complex and redundant bureaucracy. That is exactly what the Farm Workforce Modernization Act (FWMA) allows. The FWMA favors work solutions over monetary bandages, aligns closely with recent recommendations of a Congressional working group on ag labor, and is supported by over 250 agricultural groups and organizations. But redundancy on this issue is becoming the norm. Not only has the U.S. House of Representatives successfully passed the FWMA multiple times, these 250 groups and members have spoken about ag labor reform for years, and nothing has changed. For decades farms have sought improvements to the H-2A program without success, and out of necessity have adopted expensive new technology, increased human resource costs to navigate the H-2A system, outsourced hiring to farm labor contractors, or gone out of business. Additionally, the skyrocketing wage rate used in the H-2A program that the FWMA seeks to freeze and reform is becoming unsustainable for farmers across the country. Reforming the H-2A visa program for temporary workers is critical for protecting the future of American agriculture. If enacted, the reforms outlined in FWMA would improve efficiencies in filing, reform wages and control volatile fluctuations, reduce housing costs, meet year-round labor needs, and mandate E-Verify for the agricultural sector. It's time that the little red hen had a little support, especially when neighbors are more than willing to help, if only the farmer would open the gate. Adopting policy reforms, like the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, would begin much-needed and long-awaited reform for agricultural labor, bringing stability to farmers, improving food security, and providing good jobs to those willing to put in the actual work to produce and harvest America’s crops. Congressman Mike Simpson is currently serving his thirteenth term in the House of Representatives for Idaho’s Second Congressional District. Mike serves as Chairman of the House Interior and Environment Subcommittee on Appropriations. Madi Clark is a Senior Policy Analyst for the Mountain States Policy Center, an independent free-market research organization based in Idaho.

The annual “Rich States, Poor States” report produced by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) shows Idaho ranking 2nd for economic outlook and economic performance. Here are the metrics ALEC used to make its state rankings: Governor Little recently said this about the news: “Not surprisingly, year after year Idaho surges ahead of the competition in job growth, household income growth, economic outlook, economic performance, and fiscal responsibility. Why? Because we have championed unprecedented tax relief while making historic strategic investments in schools, roads, water, workforce, outdoor recreation, and other infrastructure to keep up with record growth. Our businesses and communities are made up of good people who support one another. What Idaho is doing is WORKING!” An article in Governing noted: "State policy matters for economic growth: The latest census data documents that millions of Americans are voting with their feet by moving to states that offer more freedom and greater opportunity. With that in mind, the top five states in economic outlook for 2023 may not come as a surprise: Utah, Idaho, Arizona, North Carolina and Indiana . . . Across Utah’s northern border, Idaho ranks second in the nation for economic outlook. The Gem State joined the 2022 Flat Tax Revolution, condensing both personal and business income tax brackets into a flat 5.8 percent rate. Idaho also boasts a right-to-work law, no death taxes and relatively low property tax burdens.” A press release from Idaho’s Department of Labor this week provided additional news: “Idaho’s average wage for all occupations was $26.75 per hour in 2023, according to recently released data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics survey. This amounts to an increase of 8.3%, or $2.06 per hour, from the year prior . . . Employment has also grown across the state. In 2023, Idaho’s reported employment number was 822,690 — an increase of over 25,000, or 3.2%, from 2022’s total of 797,420. Boise, the largest MSA, experienced the bulk of the state’s employment growth. The Boise MSA added 14,240 jobs — a 4.0% gain, exceeding the state’s growth of 3.2%.” Utah has claimed the top spot in the “Rich States, Poor States” report for several years running. With Idaho's improving economic outcomes, however, the Beehive State may soon be buzzing with concern about being passed in the near future by the Gem State for the nation's top economic ranking.

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) rapidly advances, state legislatures across the country are grappling with how to regulate this complex technology. States are taking diverse approaches, with a mix of cautious observation and proactive measures. It is no secret that AI is advancing in every aspect of our lives. Many states, including Idaho, Washington, Montana, and Wyoming have taken a stab at trying to navigate this new and uncharted territory. Here is a five-step approach designed to empower state legislatures to take a fiscally conservative approach to AI, maximizing its potential while mitigating risks and ensuring financial value. Step 1: Uncovering the wasteland by identifying inefficiencies Before harnessing AI's power, state legislatures must first illuminate the areas most ripe for improvement. This step demands an examination of government spending patterns. This includes a meticulous effort to analyze data on program costs, service delivery, and administrative functions across all departments. Here are areas that AI can help: Repetitive tasks: Are employees bogged down in manual data entry or paperwork? AI automation can free them for higher-value tasks, saving time and money. Administrative bloat: Are layers of bureaucracy slowing down processes and inflating costs? AI can streamline workflows, reducing administrative overhead. Hidden inefficiencies: Analyze wait times for business filings, error rates, and citizen feedback to uncover hidden inefficiencies that drain resources and frustrate taxpayers. Step 2: Unveiling efficiency goldmines with AI's transformative potential By evaluating the potential for efficiency, state legislatures can move beyond theoretical possibilities and paint a clear picture of the potential return on investment that is offered by AI. Calculating both direct cost savings from automation and improved service delivery alongside the indirect benefits of citizen satisfaction and increased effectiveness creates a compelling case for fiscally responsible AI implementation. Step 3: Cost-benefit analysis to strike the balance between investment and savings A rigorous cost-benefit analysis should be the cornerstone of any AI implementation plan. This analysis goes beyond simply accounting for the costs of developing, implementing, and maintaining AI solutions. It must meticulously estimate the potential cost savings generated by increased efficiency across various areas. For example, one recent report by Route Fifty's Public Finance Update estimated that AI could boost productivity by $519 billion a year across all U.S. governments. Step 4: Mitigating risk with proactive planning for success While AI promises substantial benefits, responsible implementation demands proactive risk mitigation. Ignoring potential harm, such as job displacement, product inefficiency, and privacy concerns, could undermine public trust and negate the gains achieved. AI can automate repetitive tasks, allowing humans to focus on higher-level thinking, strategy, and innovation. Proactive programs can be designed to equip workers with the skills needed for new AI-driven roles. Collaboration with educational institutions and businesses is key for effective training programs. Step 5: Building a roadmap for phased implementation for sustainable success Building a sustainable and successful AI implementation within state government requires a strategic, fiscally responsible approach. To have a successful implementation there must be a plan in place. Don't rush into widespread adoption. Instead, prioritize projects based on their potential for cost savings, efficiency gains, and other focus described in Step Two. Consider areas like repetitive tasks, data-driven decision-making, and fraud detection. Begin with low-risk pilot projects to test the water, gather valuable learnings, and refine the approach before wider implementation. This minimizes risk and allows for course correction based on real-world experience. The AI landscape is vast and mostly unexplored in the public sector. It is likely that when implementing these practices, public officials will be trailblazers for the surrounding states and even the county. Harnessing the power of AI is not just about cost savings, it's about delivering better public services and improving the lives of citizens. By using a good process, public officials can effectively put AI to work for their state.

Teenagers are spending more time online than ever before, raising concerns among parents and lawmakers. As a parent of teenagers myself, I know policies aimed at giving parents better tools to oversee their kids’ online activity should be a top priority for Congress. However, many of the proposals being floated fail to find the right balance between protecting kids and establishing government overreach into Americans’ home lives. The Kids Online Safety Act, for example, would give the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) near total control to decide what online content is considered harmful to kids. Known in policy circles as KOSA, the Kids Online Safety Act is a bipartisan bill that was first introduced in Congress in 2022. The bill is meant to protect America’s youth from online predators and age-inappropriate content. In its original form, the legislation gave state attorneys general full enforcement power, which would have smartly allowed for a localized implementation. However, this approach raised concerns with progressive groups who worried about placing the power in the hands of Republican AGs. To win over more Democrats' support for the legislation, the bill authors changed the policy so that the FTC would have full enforcement control. This change successfully appeased Democratic lawmakers since the FTC – run by Biden appointee Lina Khan – is aligned with their views on what content is appropriate for children. However, this change should raise alarm bells for any American who believes in limited government since it drastically expands the FTC's power and gives Washington bureaucrats strong influence over what our children see online. KOSA’s primary objective is blocking online content that is harmful to children – including content that may cause anxiety or depression. While well-intentioned, the bill defines ‘harmful content’ vaguely, leaving a lot of room for interpretation for whoever is enforcing the legislation – in this case, the FTC. Giving this kind of blank check power to a large federal agency opens the door for government censorship since it will be up to their discretion to determine what content is allowed. This is especially concerning given recent concerns that have arisen about Lina Khan, who has faced accusations from her own staff that she’s using the FTC's power to advance her political agenda. A House Judiciary Committee investigation exposed widespread criticism from FTC staff about Chair Khan’s leadership and priorities. One employee went so far as to say that Lina Khan consistently made decisions based on what would make a good headline instead of what’s best for the American people. By giving the FTC so much oversight power, KOSA opens the door to government censorship online, allowing Washington bureaucrats to determine what content is deemed harmful. Instead of this approach, the government should empower parents to be the ones who decide how their children interact online. There are better policy proposals that would put parents – not the government in the driver's seat.

Let’s do a simple thought experiment. Pretend that every time you go to the grocery store there are no prices posted for the food products. You have no way of knowing how much anything costs until you get to the check out counter. And when you do get to the check out, someone else pays for over 80 percent of your groceries. On the one hand, you really don’t care what prices are because someone else is paying for the vast majority of your food. On the other hand, you are still paying for a significant portion of your groceries, so it would be handy to know prices. This thought experiment defines the current health care system in the United States. A third party, either the government through insurance programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare, or employers through employee benefits pay for a very significant portion of health care in our current system. Consequently, until recently, prices in health care have not mattered to patients. Americans have been shielded from health care costs. Yet, insurance deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses have been increasing, putting more financial pressure on patients. At the end of the day, health care is an economic activity, just like buying groceries, or clothes, or shelter. The relationship between a provider and a patient is unquestionably the most personal activity we undertake, however, health care has costs. The one thing that all policymakers can agree on is that the rising costs of health care are unsustainable. We currently spend almost 20 percent of our economy, or gross domestic product, on health care in the U.S. Unless something changes, this number is predicted to reach over 30 percent of GDP in the next 10 to 15 years. To change this trajectory of increasing health care spending, price transparency is mandatory. Patients must have the ability to act as true consumers of medical care and be able to compare treatment prices from multiple providers. The federal government has mandated that hospitals publish their pricing structure, yet medical facilities have been extremely slow in meeting this requirement. The first step in controlling health care costs is to give patients, as consumers of medical care, the ability to obtain quality care at the most reasonable price. Competition in pricing is a fundamental of a free market and just as in grocery shopping, Americans should have the right to know prices for their medical care.

Study after study continue to show that charter schools are demonstrating positive performance outcomes for students. It is time for states like Washington, with artificial caps, to allow these public school alternatives to increase to meet market demand. Charter schools are tuition-free schools that are publicly funded but independently run. Most charter schools are exempt from many state laws and regulations but are subject to a contract that includes goals, fiscal oversight, and accountability. If charter schools don't perform, they can be closed. However, charter school laws vary from state to state. While Washington, for example, allows public charter schools, the law is so limiting that it produces an artificial cap on the number of students who can attend. Despite the claims of opponents, charter schools are public schools. They don't pick and choose students, and often they serve more underserved students than local district schools and achieve higher outcomes than traditional public schools. Studies continue to show that public charter schools are making a positive difference in students' lives. That’s the main conclusion from Stanford’s Center for Research on Educational Outcomes (CREDO) 2023 analysis. The CREDO study has been produced three times – once in 2009, again in 2013 and the latest version in 2023. More than 3.7 million students across 43 states attend charter schools, including in Idaho and Washington. Montana recently legalized public charter schools. The latest CREDO report shows increases in outcomes for just about every student category in nearly all states. The typical charter school student had math and reading gains that outpaced peers in traditional public schools. In math, charter schools advanced learning by an additional six days. In reading, charter school students advanced 16 days of learning each year. While these numbers are national averages, certain state-by-state data shows even stronger gains. Idaho’s charter school students gained an additional 17 days of learning in reading. Washington’s advancement approached 30 days. In Math, Washington students advanced almost 40 days while Idaho students advanced eight. Charter schools in Idaho continue to have an impressive record. There are more than 70 statewide, and some are listed as among the top schools in the nation. In 2024, Idaho adopted “The Accelerating Public Charter Schools Act” to remove some of the regulatory burden on charter schools to allow administrators and educators more time to focus on student outcomes. A press release by Idaho’s Governor Little said this about the new law: “This bill cuts red tape around supporting charter schools in Idaho through best practices, development, and educational and operational assistance. It gives more flexibility for the high performing charters of Idaho and more support to charters that are struggling and need more guidance.” Though limited in number, charter schools are also performing well in the Evergreen State. As reported by Washington State Wire: “Washington’s charter school students are scoring similar or better than their traditional public school peers, according to a new report released by the State Board of Education. The report, which analyzes data from the 2022-2023 school year, also found Black and Hispanic students, English learners and children from low-income households are consistently performing better in charter schools than in traditional public schools.” Mountain States Policy Center believes that education choice means an all of the above approach – traditional public schools, charter schools, magnet schools, micro-schools, homeschooling, and more. Along with increasing access to additional education choice options, policymakers in all states should continue to embrace charter schools and act to enhance their ability to meet the needs of students and families who are looking for alternative education opportunities.

A crowd of nearly 600 packed the Coeur d'Alene Resort Friday night for MSPC's 2024 Spring Dinner, hearing from keynote speaker Kayleigh McEnany and honoring the legislators who have championed education reform with our Elevation Award. The Elevation Award is the highest honor of Mountain States Policy Center, given to individuals committed to advancing and elevating free market principles and ideas throughout our region. This year, MSPC recognized Montana Representative Sue Vinton, who led the charge to bring charter schools to the Treasure state. Representative Vinton also spearheaded the effort to introduce Education Savings Accounts for special needs children in Montana. In Idaho, MSPC honored state House Majority Leader Jason Monks, Representative Wendy Horman, Senator Doug Ricks, Senator Lori Den Hartog and Senator C. Scott Grow. All of these leaders have been instrumental in the introduction of the Parental Choice Tax Credit proposal for families that would have offset the cost of school tuition and other education-related expenses. Representative Horman has also been a strong advocate of transparency, including the Public School Transparency Act. This MSPC reform idea would require all public school districts, both on the first page of their budget and also on the front page of the district’s main website, to clearly report items including total spending, teacher to student ratios, and other data that would make it easier for parents and the community to understand the resources that a school district may or may not have. "Increasing education opportunity is one of the greatest civil rights issues of our time," said MSPC President Chris Cargill. "These elected leaders represent the future of education, not the past." MSPC's Spring and Fall Dinners are some of the region’s largest policy galas. Mountain States Policy Center is a non-profit, non-partisan research center that provides free market solutions to successfully grow the region. MSPC concentrates its work in Idaho, Eastern Washington, Montana and Wyoming – one of the first organizations of its kind to cover multiple states. MSPC’s mission is to empower those in the Mountain States to succeed through non-partisan, quality research that promotes free enterprise, individual liberty and limited government.

In an era where the efficiency of public benefit programs is crucial, states are facing a pressing need for modernization. An emphasis on implementing Artificial Intelligence (AI) and automation technologies presents an opportunity to enhance free market practices while ensuring cost-effective and accountable governance. The current landscape reveals a stark reality. States like Georgia are grappling with backlogs and inefficiencies in processing public benefit programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Outdated technology and workforce shortages exacerbate these challenges, leaving families actually in need in limbo and straining state resources. Understanding the potential of AI to streamline processes and mitigate errors, some states are beginning to embrace these technologies with cautious optimism. A careful balance between innovation and fiscal responsibility is needed. Any implementation of AI must prioritize cost savings and efficiency without resorting to additional government spending. The goal is to deliver services more effectively while minimizing bureaucratic expansion. As always, human oversight remains paramount in cases where AI may raise red flags or encounter issues. By incorporating mechanisms for manual review and intervention, states can ensure that the system operates with transparency and accountability. This approach aligns with conservative values of prudent governance and limited government intervention. The adoption of AI should not replace human empathy and discretion in serving vulnerable populations. While automation can expedite processes, it must not compromise the dignity and personalized support that individuals deserve when accessing public benefits. Texas has blazed the trail in implementing a form of AI called Robotic Process Automation (RPA): "Texas uses RPA to collect data from the Bureau of Vital Statistics and Social Security Administration to compare against the eligibility system for a perfect match. The bot will automatically update the case to send a Notice of Adverse Action to one-person households that are reported deceased." To address concerns of bias and equity, states must demonstrate proactive measures to mitigate potential risks associated with AI implementation. This includes rigorous auditing, training, and continuous monitoring to uphold fairness and integrity in program administration. As reported by Route-Fifty, Food and Nutrition Services must approve the implementation of the systems states would like to incorporate in their agencies. In the article regarding AI, they stated: "To get approval, states would be required to show how they are mitigating potential bias and must explain how advanced automation technology is expected to affect program access, staff duties, system security, equitable program administration, and privacy. States also will be required to summarize how they will audit actions taken by the technology to support appeals and monitor its accuracy and equity." Initiatives such as telephonic signatures exemplify innovation in streamlining bureaucracy. By leveraging simple yet effective technologies, states can expedite benefits approvals and enhance the user experience for applicants without sacrificing quality or oversight and breaking the bank on additional customer service agents. Embracing AI in state programs represents a conservative approach to efficiency and accountability. By harnessing technology to optimize processes, states can enhance free market principles while delivering essential services to those in need. With careful oversight and a commitment to fiscal responsibility, AI holds the potential to revolutionize public administration for the betterment of society.