Republican Governors across the country sent President Biden a letter on January 22 in opposition to proposed federal rules they say would unduly restrict the vehicle options available to Americans and force the use of electric vehicles. Among those signing the letter were Idaho Governor Little, Montana Governor Gianforte, and Wyoming Governor Gordon. The Governors wrote: “We are writing today on behalf of the American consumer to urge you to change course on your current mandate that two out of every three vehicles be battery electrics by 2032. Instead of using government mandates to drive the vehicle market, allow American consumers to maintain choice in the types of vehicles they choose to drive. While we are not opposed to the electric vehicle marketplace, we do have concerns with federal government mandates that penalize retailers and do not reflect the will of the consumer. Even with deep price cuts, manufacturers’ incentives, and generous government funding, federal mandates on electric vehicles are unrealistic. The American customer should be able to decide what technology makes most sense for them, not the federal government.” The letter closes by saying: “There are a number of reasons why consumers are leaving these cars on dealership lots – the cost, the infrastructure required, and the battery content requirements are untenable for today’s car buyers. Even if consumers determine over time that battery electric vehicles are appealing, the reality is that the lack of a strong, domestic marketplace makes electric vehicles prohibitively expensive for the American consumer. While battery electric vehicles are a promising technology, we believe it will take time to develop the marketplace, to address consumer access and concerns, and to build out the necessary infrastructure. Ultimately, we must continue to maintain consumer choice. Your mandates are unrealistic, costly, and prescriptive solutions that harm American consumers. Therefore, we request you remove your mandate that two out of every three vehicles be electric and instead provide a more realistic approach by allowing the free market to determine the direction and timing for the industry’s growth rather than the federal government. Let American consumers decide for themselves.” Dozens of U.S. Senators and Representatives (including those from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming) also sent a letter on January 23 opposing the new federal mandate: “We write to express our deep concern with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) proposed Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars and light trucks, which represent yet another attempt by this Administration to use the rulemaking process to impose its climate agenda on American families. NHTSA’s proposed standards, when coupled with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) distinct, extreme tailpipe emissions proposal, amount to a de facto mandate for electric vehicles (EVs) that threatens to raise costs and restrict consumer choice, harm U.S. businesses, degrade our energy and national security and hand the keys of our automotive industry over to our adversaries, especially China. Therefore, we strongly urge NHTSA to withdraw its misguided proposal, go back to the drawing board and reissue new CAFE standards that comply with the law, rather than ones that seek to pick winners and losers in the free market and remake our country’s economy. Nowhere in law did Congress authorize NHTSA to set fuel economy standards that effectively mandate EVs while at the same time force the internal combustion engine out of the market. In fact, federal statute expressly prohibits NHTSA from considering the fuel economy of EVs when determining maximum feasible CAFE standards for passenger cars and trucks. Despite this clear statutory limitation, which NHTSA acknowledged in its proposal, NHTSA accounted for EVs in its regulatory baseline and factored that baseline into its determination of the maximum achievable CAFE standards. In doing so, NHTSA created standards that simply cannot be met by vehicles that use liquid fuels alone, but only through the mass production of EVs. Therefore, NHTSA’s proposal does not meet the statutory requirements of the CAFE Program.” The Congressional letter continues: “NHTSA’s out-of-touch de facto EV mandate ignores the reality that most Americans still prefer the internal combustion engine vehicle, and the fact there is a lack of consumer demand for EVs. Major U.S. automakers have recently lowered their targets and pulled back planned investments in EVs due to low consumer demand and struggling EV units. They have also announced that jobs will be lost at U.S. plants. Furthermore, automobile dealers across the country have said that EVs continue to sit unpurchased on dealership lots, despite automakers accepting massive losses and unsustainable government incentives. The low consumer demand for EVs can likely be attributed to the various unappealing aspects of these vehicles, including the typically higher sticker prices and insurance premiums, shorter average driving ranges, lower resale value, inadequate battery technologies for severe cold weather and lack of operational charging infrastructure, particularly for drivers in rural areas. EVs are not a practical option for most Americans.” Idaho U.S. Senator Risch also posted on X (Twitter): “Consumer choice matters, but the Biden admin’s egregious EV mandate takes away Idahoans’ freedom to purchase a practical and affordable vehicle. The Biden admin must withdraw these misguided fuel economy regulations.” While electric vehicles may be a good option for some lifestyles, the use of these vehicles poses many challenges for those living where there is a large swing between temperatures and in more rural areas where a dependable driving range is needed. A recent news story out of Wyoming notes: “It’s been one worry after the other. Range of driving tapers off in cold weather, and batteries take longer to juice up when it’s cold. Now reports are surfacing that tires on EVs wear out at a superfast clip.” The cost associated with electric vehicles is one of the reasons Hertz recently announced it was selling EVs and purchasing gas-powered cars instead for its rental fleet. As reported by Reuters: "Rental firm Hertz Global Holdings is selling about 20,000 electric vehicles, including Teslas, from its U.S. fleet about two years after a deal with the automaker to offer its vehicles for rent, in another sign that EV demand has cooled. Hertz will instead opt for gas-powered vehicles, it said on Thursday, citing higher expenses related to collision and damage for EVs even though it had aimed to convert 25% of its fleet to electric by 2024 end." Consumers should have the option to choose the vehicles that are the most functional for their individual driving needs and location. It is encouraging to see these Governors and members of Congress fight back against a federal “de facto EV mandate” that unduly restricts the vehicle choices of Americans.

The Idaho House Judiciary, Rules and Administration committee is making quick work of House Bill 406 - legislation that "adds to existing law to provide for the crimes of trafficking in fentanyl and drug-induced homicide." The bill was just introduced in committee on Wednesday, officially released to the public in bill form today, and a hearing will be held Friday morning at 9:30am. Just. Like. That. Chairman Bruce Skaug told me this afternoon that the bill was moved up because of the concern about weather and travel for legislators. Fair enough. But the public will need to move quickly if they want to have any say. It will likely be impossible for anyone outside the Treasure Valley to testify in person. Those wishing to offer remote testimony might need to change their schedule on the fly. This action calls attention to one rule change that we recommended for lawmakers to improve public participation in the legislative process. To help maximize public involvement in their governance, lawmakers should amend their rules to require at least 3-day public notice of the bills to be heard at public hearings. Providing advance notice of bills scheduled for public hearings is a standard practice among neighboring states. This type of public notice is necessary to allow for meaningful involvement by citizens in the bill hearing process. The presumption for meaningful public participation in the legislative process is called for in the state constitution. Idaho’s constitution declares: “All political power is inherent in the people.” Idaho’s open meetings law says: “No less than a five (5) calendar day meeting notice and a forty-eight (48) hour agenda notice shall be given unless otherwise provided by statute.” Several state constitutions also require the text of bills to be publicly available for several days to avoid quick passage toward the end of a session without the opportunity for public involvement. For example: Michigan constitution: “No bill shall be passed or become a law at any regular session of the legislature until it has been printed or reproduced and in the possession of each house for at least five days.” Washington constitution: “No bill shall be considered in either house unless the time of its introduction shall have been at least ten days before the final adjournment of the legislature, unless the legislature shall otherwise direct by a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, said vote to be taken by yeas and nays and entered upon the journal, or unless the same be at a special session.” Whether we are entrepreneurs, parents, students, members of a trade group, or even a lawmaker, it is important to have meaningful public notice of when a bill is going to be available for a public hearing and what the actual text of that proposal is. Only then can we rearrange our schedules, review, and prepare to provide the testimony lawmakers need to help advance good policy for the state. The bill now up for a public hearing tomorrow may very well be good policy, but the process needs improving. Requiring at least a 3-day notice of bills scheduled for a public hearing will help improve the information available not only for citizens but also lawmakers, as bills advance through the legislative process.

If you had these odds, you’d buy a lottery ticket. This is the week each year that we celebrate education choice. Those across the political spectrum have recognized the need to provide kids with more options, whether they be public, private, religious, charter or magnet. Education choice means all the above. It does not mean shutting down public schools. As of March 2023, there have been nearly 190 studies on the impact of education choice. Researchers have looked at fiscal effects, parent satisfaction, test scores, attainment, civic values, school safety and racial integration. Remarkably, 84% of studies show a positive effect, 10% show no impact, and 6% show a negative result. Studies were completed in red states and blue states, in those rural and urban. With 187 studies now published, we have more information on the impact of education choice than ever before. When it comes to student test scores, researchers across five states and Washington, D.C., produced 17 pieces of analysis. Eleven found that vouchers and scholarships improved test scores for at least some students. Four studies found no effect, while three found that vouchers and scholarships negatively impacted test scores for certain groups. Seven studies across five states and Washington, D.C. examined the educational attainment of students in four voucher programs, one tax-credit scholarship program, and one privately funded scholarship program. Five of these studies found that the programs had a positive impact on educational attainment for some or all participating students, while two studies found no discernible effect. None of the studies uncovered negative outcomes for any student group. Thirty-three studies across thirteen states and Washington, D.C. have examined parent satisfaction with education choice programs. These studies looked at three Education Savings Account programs, seven voucher programs, eight tax-credit scholarship programs, and at least seven privately funded scholarship programs. Of these thirty-three studies, thirty-one found that private school choice programs had positive effects on parent satisfaction, one study found no discernible effect, and two studies found negative effects. Examining the effects of private school choice programs on public school student test scores, 26 of 29 studies across eight states and Washington, D.C. found positive effects. These studies analyzed nine voucher initiatives, one tax-credit scholarship, and one privately funded scholarship. Only one study found no effect, while two studies saw negative effects. The studies examined two voucher programs and at least three privately funded scholarship programs across four states and Washington, D.C.. Of the 11 studies examining the effects of private school choice programs on civic values and practices, six found positive effects, five found no visible effect, and none found negative effects. Examining five voucher programs across three states and Washington, D.C., eight studies found mostly positive effects on racial integration in schools with seven showing integration improvements, one detecting no discernible effect, and none revealing negative consequences. The largest body of research we have is on the fiscal impact of school choice. Researchers have examined 24 voucher programs, 18 tax-credit scholarship programs, three education savings account programs, and one privately funded scholarship program in 23 states and Washington, D.C. Of the 74 studies reviewed, 68 found that these programs generated net savings for taxpayers. Another 5 studies found the programs to be cost-neutral, while 5 estimated net costs. However, 4 of the studies that found net costs also reported net savings over the long term, with only short-term costs. Finally, across four states and Washington, D.C., eight studies examined the impact of five voucher programs and three privately funded scholarship programs on school climate and safety. All eight studies found that educational choice programs had positive effects on school climate and safety, with none finding negative outcomes. The point here is that every program is different. Every state is different. Every child is different. It shouldn’t matter what school a child is attending, so long as they are receiving a quality education. It’s easy to understand why increasing numbers of Americans support education choice. The facts and the research don't lie. Here are the studies referenced: Heidi H. Erickson, Jonathan N. Mills and Patrick J. Wolf (2021), The Effects of the Louisiana Scholarship Program on Student Achievement and College Entrance, Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, retrieved from https://doi.org/10. 1080/19345747.2021.1938311 Ann Webber, Ning Rui, Roberta Garrison-Mogren, Robert B. Olsen, and Babette Gutmann (2019), Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts Three Years After Students Applied (NCEE 2019-4006), retrieved from Institute of Education Sciences website: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20194006/pdf/20194006. pdf Atila Abdulkadiroglu, Parag A. Pathak, and Christopher R. Walters (2018), Free to Choose: Can School Choice Reduce Student Achievement? American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 10(1), pp. 175–206, https://dx.doi.org/10.1257/ app.20160634 Marianne Bitler, Thurston Domina, Emily Penner, and Hilary Hoynes (2015), Distributional Analysis in Educational Evaluation: A Case Study from the New York City Voucher Program, Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8(3), pp. 419–450, https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2014.921259 Patrick J. Wolf, Brian Kisida, Babette Gutmann, Michael Puma, Nada Eissa, and Lou Rizo (2013), School Vouchers and Student Outcomes: Experimental Evidence from Washington, D.C. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(2), pp. 246–270, https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pam.21691 Hui Jin, John Barnard, and Donald Rubin (2010), A Modified General Location Model for Noncompliance with Missing Data: Revisiting the New York City School Choice Scholarship Program using Principal Stratification, Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35(2), pp. 154–173, https://dx.doi. org/10.3102/1076998609346968 Joshua Cowen (2008), School Choice as a Latent Variable: Estimating the “Complier Average Causal Effect” of Vouchers in Charlotte. Policy Studies Journal, 36(2), pp. 301–315, https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00268.x Carlos Lamarche (2008), Private school vouchers and student achievement: A fixed effects quantile regression evaluation, Labour Economics, 15(4), pp. 575-590, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2008.04.007 Eric Bettinger and Robert Slonim (2006), Using Experimental Economics to Measure the Effects of a Natural Educational Experiment on Altruism. Journal of Public Economics, 90(8–9), pp. 1625–1648, https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.10.006 Alan Krueger and Pei Zhu (2004), Another Look at the New York City School Voucher Experiment. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(5), pp. 658–698, https://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0002764203260152 John Barnard, Constantine Frangakis, Jennifer Hill, and Donald Rubin (2003), Principal Stratification Approach to Broken Randomized Experiments: A Case Study of School Choice Vouchers in New York City. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 98(462), pp. 310–326, https://dx.doi.org/10.1198/016214503000071 William G. Howell, Patrick J. Wolf, David E. Campbell, and Paul E. Peterson (2002), School Vouchers and Academic Performance: Results from Three Randomized Field Trials, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21(2), pp. 191–217, https://dx.doi. org/10.1002/pam.10023 Jay P. Greene (2001), Vouchers in Charlotte. Education Next, 1(2), pp. 55–60, retrieved from Education Next website: https://www.educationnext.org/vouchersincharlotte /#:~:text=Greene-,Jay%20P.,school%20of%20a%20family’s%20choosing. Jay P. Greene, Paul Peterson, and Jiangtao Du (1999), Effectiveness of School Choice: The Milwaukee Experiment, Education and Urban Society, 31(2), pp. 190–213, https:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013124599031002005 Cecilia E. Rouse (1998), Private School Vouchers and Student Achievement: An Evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(2), pp. 553–602, https://dx.doi.org/10.1162/003355398555685 Megan J. Austin and Max Pardo (2021), Do college and career readiness and early college success in Indiana vary depending on whether students attend public, charter, or private voucher high schools? (REL 2021–071), U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest, retrieved from: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs Heidi H. Erickson, Jonathan N. Mills and Patrick J. Wolf (2021), The Effects of the Louisiana Scholarship Program on Student Achievement and College Entrance, Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747. 2021.1938311 Albert Cheng and Paul E. Peterson (2020), Experimentally Estimated Impacts of School Vouchers on Educational Attainments of Moderately and Severely Disadvantaged Students (PEPG 20-02), retrieved from Harvard University website: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Taubman/PEPG/research/ PEPG20_02.pdf ** This paper is an update to the analysis from: Matthew M. Chingos and Paul E. Peterson (2015), Experimentally Estimated Impacts of School Vouchers on College Enrollment and Degree Attainment, Journal of Public Economics, 122, pp. 1–12, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.11.013 Matthew M. Chingos, Daniel Kuehn, Tomas Monarrez, Patrick J. Wolf, John F. Witte, and Brian Kisida (2019), The Effects of Means-Tested Private School Choice Programs on College Enrollment and Graduation, retrieved from Urban Institute website: https:// www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/100665/the_effects_of_means- tested_private_school_choice_programs_on_college_enrollment_and_graduation_2. pdf Patrick J. Wolf, Brian Kisida, Babette Gutmann, Michael Puma, Nada Eissa, and Lou Rizo (2013), School Vouchers and Student Outcomes: Experimental Evidence from Washington, DC, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(2), pp. 246–270, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pam.21691 Andrew D. Catt and John M. Kristof (2022), Families’ Schooling Experiences in Kansas, EdChoice and Kansas Policy Institute, retrieved from: https://www.edchoice.org/wp- content/uploads/2022/11/Famlies-Schooling-Experiences-in-Kansas.pdf Shannon Varga et al. (2021), Choices and Challenges: Florida Parents’ Experiences with the State’s McKay and Gardiner Scholarship Programs for Students with Disabilities, Boston University, CERES Institute for Children & Youth, retrieved from: https:// ceresinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ChoicesChallenges_REPORT.pdf Andrew D. Catt and Albert Cheng (2019), Families’ Experiences on the New Frontier of Educational Choice: Findings from a Survey of K–12 Parents in Arizona, retrieved from EdChoice website: https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2019-4- Arizona-Parent-Survey-by-Andrew-Catt-and-Albert-Chang.pdf New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration (2018), Scholarship Organization Report: Giving and Going Alliance, retrieved from https://www.revenue. nh.gov/assistance/documents/giving-and-going-alliance.pdf ; New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration (2018), Scholarship Organization Report: Children’s Scholarship Fund, retrieved from https://www.revenue.nh.gov/quick- links/documents/childrens-scholarship-fund-ed-5.pdf Legislative Audit Bureau (2018), Special Needs Scholarship Program (Report 18-6), retrieved from https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/2753/18-6full.pdf 32 Andrew D. Catt and Evan Rhinesmith (2017), Why Indiana Parents Choose: A Cross- Sector Survey of Parents’ Views in a Robust School Choice Environment, retrieved from EdChoice website: https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Why- Indiana-Parents-Choose-1.pdf Anna J. Egalite, Ashley Gray, and Trip Stallings (2017), Parent Perspectives: Applicants to North Carolina’s Opportunity Scholarship Program Share Their Experiences (OS Evaluation Report 2), retrieved from North Carolina State University website: https:// ced.ncsu.edu/elphd/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/07/Parent-Perspectives.pdf Andrew D. Catt and Evan Rhinesmith (2016), Why Parents Choose: A Survey of Private School and School Choice Parents in Indiana, retrieved from EdChoice website: https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Why-Parents-Choose-A- Survey-of-Private-School-and-School-Choice-Parents-in-Indiana-by-Andrew-D.- Catt-and-Evan-Rhinesmith.pdf Brett Kittredge (2016), The Special Needs ESA: What Families Enrolled in the Program Are Saying After Year One, retrieved from Empower Mississippi website: http:// empowerms.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ESA-Report-final.pdf David B. Black (2015), School Choice and Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program for Students with Disabilities: An Analysis of Parental Satisfaction [dissertation], Florida Atlantic University, retrieved from http://fau.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/ fau%3A31570/datastream/OBJ/view/School_choice_and_Florida___s_McKay_ scholarship_program_for_students_with_disabilities__an_analysis_of_parental_ satisfaction.pdf Paul DiPerna (2015), Why Indiana Voucher Parents Choose Private Schools, retrieved from EdChoice website: http://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ Indiana-Survey.pdf Brian Kisida and Patrick Wolf (2015), Customer Satisfaction and Educational Outcomes: Experimental Impacts of the Market-Based Delivery of Public Education. International Public Management Journal, 18(2), pp. 265–285, https://dx.doi.org/10.1 080/10967494.2014.996629 Jonathan Butcher and Jason Bedrick (2013), Schooling Satisfaction: Arizona Parents’ Opinions on Using Education Savings Accounts, retrieved from EdChoice website: https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/SCHOOLING- SATISFACTION-Arizona-Parents-Opinions-on-Using-Education-Savings-Accounts- NEW.pdf James P. Kelly, III, and Benjamin Scafidi (2013), More Than Scores: An Analysis of Why and How Parents Choose Private Schools, retrieved from EdChoice website: http:// www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/More-Than-Scores.pdf John F. Witte, Patrick J. Wolf, Joshua M. Cowen, David J. Fleming, and Juanita Lucas- McLean (2008), MPCP Longitudinal Educational Growth Study: Baseline Report (SCDP Milwaukee Evaluation Report 5), retrieved from University of Arkansas Department of Education Reform website: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/scdp/42/ Virginia R. Weidner and Carolyn D. Herrington (2006), Are Parents Informed Consumers: Evidence from the Florida McKay Scholarship Program, Peabody Journal of Education, 81(1), pp. 27–56, https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327930pje8101_3 Jay P. Greene and Greg Forster (2003), Vouchers for Special Education Students: An Evaluation of Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program (Civic Report 38), retrieved from Manhattan Institute website: https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_38. pdf William G. Howell and Paul E. Peterson (2002), The Education Gap: Vouchers and Urban Schools, retrieved from JSTOR website: https://www.jstor.org/ stable/10.7864/j.ctt128086 Jay P. Greene (2001), Vouchers in Charlotte. Education Next, 1(2), pp. 55–60, retrieved from Education Next website: https://www.educationnext.org/vouchersincharlotte/ Paul E. Peterson and David E. Campbell (2001), An Evaluation of the Children’s Scholarship Fund (PEPG 01-01), retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED453308 Paul E. Peterson, David E. Campbell, and Martin R. West (2001), An Evaluation of the BASIC Fund Scholarship Program in the San Francisco Bay Area, California (PEPG 01- 01), retrieved from Paul E. Peterson website: http://paulepeterson.org/publications/ evaluation-basic-fund-scholarship-program-san-francisco-bay-area-california John F. Witte (2000), The Market Approach to Education: An Analysis of America’s First Voucher Program, retrieved from JSTOR website: https://www.jstor.org/ stable/j.ctt7rqnw Kim K. Metcalf (1999), Evaluation of the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Grant Program: 1996-1999, retrieved from https://cdm16007.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/ collection/p267401ccp2/id/1948 Paul E. Peterson, William G. Howell, and Jay P. Greene (1999), An Evaluation of the Cleveland Voucher Program After Two Years, retrieved from https://eric. ed.gov/?id=ED451260 Paul E. Peterson, David Myers, and William G. Howell (1999), An Evaluation of the Horizon Scholarship Program in the Edgewood Independent School district, San Antonio, Texas: The First Year, retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED441274 Jay P. Greene, William G. Howell, and Paul E. Peterson (1998), Lessons from the Cleveland Scholarship Program. In Paul E. Peterson and Bryan C. Hassel (Eds.), Learning from School Choice (pp. 357–392), retrieved from University of Arkansas Department of Education Reform website: https://jaypgreene.uark.edu/ files/2018/04/Cleveland-Lessons-Book-20e6tpp.pdf David J. Weinschrott and Sally B. Kilgore (1998), Evidence from the Indianapolis Voucher Program. In Paul E. Peterson and Bryan C. Hassel (Eds.), Learning from School Choice (pp. 307–334), https://journals.sagepub.com/ doi/10.1177/08904802016003004?icid=int.sj-abstract.citing-articles.39 David N. Figlio, Cassandra M.D. Hart, and Krzysztof Karbownik (2022), The Ripple Effect: How private-school choice programs boost competition and benefit public- school students, Education Next, 22(1), pp. 48-54. Retrieved from Education Next website: https://www.educationnext.org/ripple-effect-how-private-school-choice- programs-boost-competition-benefit-public-school-students/ Stéphane Lavertu and John J. Gregg (2022), The Ohio EdChoice Program’s Impact on School District Enrollments, Finances, and Academics, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, retrieved from Thomas B. Fordham website: https://fordhaminstitute.org/sites/ default/files/publication/pdfs/edchoice-impact-report-12-14-22-web-final.pdf Anna J. Egalite and Jonathan N. Mills (2021), Competitive Impacts of Means-Tested Vouchers on Public School Performance: Evidence from Louisiana, Education Finance and Policy, 16(1), pp. 66-91, https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00286 https:// www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/edfp_a_00286 Yusuf Canbolat (2021), The long-term effect of competition on public school achievement: Evidence from the Indiana Choice Scholarship Program, Education Policy Analysis Archives, 29(97), https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.29.6311 Anna J. Egalite and Andrew D. Catt (2020), Competitive Effects of the Indiana Choice Scholarship Program on Traditional Public School Achievement and Graduation Rates (EdChoice working paper 2020-3), retrieved from EdChoice website: https:// www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/EdChoice-Working-Paper-2020- 3-Competitive-Effects-of-the-Indiana-Choice-Scholarship-Program.pdf David Figlio and Krzysztof Karbownik (2016), Evaluation of Ohio’s EdChoice Scholarship Program: Selection, Competition, and Performance Effects, retrieved from Thomas B. Fordham Institute website: https://fordhaminstitute.org/sites/ default/files/publication/pdfs/FORDHAM-Ed-Choice-Evaluation-Report_online- edition.pdf Nathan L. Gray, John D. Merrifield, and Kerry A. Adzima (2016), A Private Universal Voucher Program’s Effects on Traditional Public Schools. Journal of Economics and Finance, 40(2), pp. 319–344, https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12197-014-9309-z Daniel H. Bowen and Julie R. Trivitt (2014), Stigma Without Sanctions: The (Lack of ) Impact of Private School Vouchers on Student Achievement, education policy analysis archives, 22(87), https://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n87.2014 David Figlio and Cassandra M.D. Hart (2014), Competitive Effects of Means-Tested School Vouchers. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6(1), pp. 133–156, https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.6.1.133 Rajashri Chakrabarti (2013), Vouchers, Public School Response, and the Role of Incentives: Evidence from Florida. Economic Inquiry, 51(1), pp. 500–526,https:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2012.00455.x Cecilia E. Rouse, Jane Hannaway, Dan Goldhaber, and David Figlio (2013), Feeling the Florida Heat? How Low-Performing Schools Respond to Voucher and Accountability Pressure. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(2), pp. 251–281, https://dx.doi.org/10.1257/pol.5.2.251 Matthew Carr (2011), The Impact of Ohio’s EdChoice on Traditional Public School Performance. Cato Journal, 31(2), pp. 257–284, retrieved from Cato Institute website: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2011/5/ cj31n2-5.pdf Marcus A. Winters and Jay P. Greene (2011), Public School Response to Special Education Vouchers: The Impact of Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program on Disability Diagnosis and Student Achievement in Public Schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(2), pp. 138–158, https://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0162373711404220 Nicholas S. Mader (2010), School Choice, Competition and Academic Quality: Essays on the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (Doctoral dissertation), retrieved from ProQuest (3424049), retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED520755 Jay P. Greene and Ryan H. Marsh (2009), The Effect of Milwaukee’s Parental Choice Program on Student Achievement in Milwaukee Public Schools (SCDP Comprehensive Longitudinal Evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program Report 11), retrieved from University of Arkansas Department of Education Reform website: https://scdp.uark.edu/the-effect-of-milwaukees-parental-choice-program-on- student-achievement-in-milwaukee-public-schools/ Rajashri Chakrabarti (2008), Can Increasing Private School Participation and Monetary Loss in a Voucher Program Affect Public School Performance? Evidence from Milwaukee, Journal of Public Economics, 92(5–6), pp. 1371–1393, https://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.06.009 Greg Forster (2008), Lost Opportunity: An Empirical Analysis of How Vouchers Affected Florida Public Schools. School Choice Issues in the State, retrieved from EdChoice website: http://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Lost- Opportunity-How-Vouchers-Affected-Florida-Public-Schools.pdf Greg Forster (2008), Promising Start: An Empirical Analysis of How EdChoice Vouchers Affect Ohio Public Schools, School Choice Issues in the State, retrieved from EdChoice website: http://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ Promising-Start-How-EdChoice-Vouchers-Affect-Ohio-Public-Schools.pdf Martin Carnoy, Frank Adamson, Amita Chudgar, Thomas F. Luschei, and John F. Witte (2007), Vouchers and Public School Performance: A Case Study of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, retrieved from Economic Policy Institute website: https:// www.epi.org/publication/book_vouchers Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters (2007), An Evaluation of the Effect of DC’s Voucher Program on Public School Achievement and Racial Integration After One Year, Journal of Catholic Education, 11(1), pp. 83–101, http://dx.doi.org/10.15365/ joce.1101072013 David N. Figlio and Cecilia E. Rouse (2006), Do Accountability and Voucher Threats Improve Low-Performing Schools? Journal of Public Economics, 90(1–2), pp. 239– 255, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.08.005 Martin R. West and Paul E. Peterson (2006), The Efficacy of Choice Threats within School Accountability Systems: Results from Legislatively Induced Experiments, Economic Journal, 116(510), pp. C46–C62, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 0297.2006.01075.x Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters (2004), Competition Passes the Test, Education Next, 4(3), pp. 66–71, retrieved from Education Next website: https://www. educationnext.org/competition-passes-the-test/ Jay P. Greene and Greg Forster (2002), Rising to the Challenge: The Effect of School Choice on Public Schools in Milwaukee and San Antonio (Civic Bulletin 27), retrieved from Manhattan Institute website: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cb_27. pdf Christopher Hammons (2002), The Effects of Town Tuitioning in Vermont and Maine. School Choice Issues in Depth, retrieved from EdChoice website: https:// www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/The-Effects-of-Town-Tuitioning- in-Vermont-and-Maine.pdf Caroline M. Hoxby (2002), How School Choice Affects the Achievement of Public School Students. In Paul T. Hill (Ed.), Choice with Equity (pp. 141–78), retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=IeUk3myQu-oC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA141 Jay P. Greene (2001), An Evaluation of the Florida A-Plus Accountability and School Choice Program, retrieved from Manhattan Institute website: http://www. manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_aplus.pdf Corey A. DeAngelis and Patrick J. Wolf (2020), Private School Choice and Character: Evidence from Milwaukee, The Journal of Private Enterprise, 35(3), pp. 13-48, http:// journal.apee.org/index.php/Parte3_2020_Journal_of_Private_Enterprise_Vol_35_ No_3_Fall Corey A. DeAngelis and Patrick J. Wolf (2018), Will Democracy Endure Private School Choice? The Effect of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program on Adult Voting Behavior, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3177517 Deven Carlson, Matthew M. Chingos, and David E. Campbell (2017), The Effect of Private School Vouchers on Political Participation. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(1), pp. 545–569, https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1256458 Jonathan N. Mills, Albert Cheng, Collin E. Hitt, Patrick J. Wolf, and Jay P. Greene (2016), Measures of Student Non-Cognitive Skills and Political Tolerance After Two Years of the Louisiana Scholarship Program (Louisiana Scholarship Program Evaluation Report 2), https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2738782 David J. Fleming (2014), Learning from Schools: School Choice, Political Learning, and Policy Feedback. Policy Studies Journal, 42(1), pp.55–78. https://dx.doi. org/10.1111/psj.12042 David J. Fleming, William Mitchell, and Michal McNally (2014), Can Markets Make Citizens? School Vouchers, Political Tolerance, and Civic Engagement. Journal of School Choice, 8(2), pp. 213–236, https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2014.905397 Eric Bettinger and Robert Slonim (2006), Using Experimental Economics to Measure the Effects of a Natural Educational Experiment on Altruism. Journal of Public Economics, 90(8–9), pp. 1625–1648, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.10.006 William G. Howell and Paul E. Peterson (2006), The Education Gap: Vouchers and Urban Schools, revised edition, retrieved from https://books.google.com/ books?id=lAzmJs8i-rUC David E. Campbell (2002), The Civic Side of School Reform: How Do School Vouchers Affect Civic Education? Working Paper of the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics, Princeton, University, NJ, provided by the author via email on March 9, 2017 Paul E. Peterson and David E. Campbell (2001), An Evaluation of the Children’s Scholarship Fund (PEPG 01-03), retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED453308 Patrick J. Wolf, Paul E. Peterson, and Martin R. West (2001), Results of a School Voucher Experiment: The Case of Washington, D.C. after Two Years (PEPG 01–05), retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED457272.pdf Stéphane Lavertu and John J. Gregg (2022), The Ohio EdChoice Program’s Impact on School District Enrollments, Finances, and Academics, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, retrieved from Thomas B. Fordham Institute website: https://fordhaminstitute.org/ sites/default/files/publication/pdfs/edchoice-impact-report-12-14-22-web-final. pdf Anna J. Egalite, Jonathan N. Mills, and Patrick J. Wolf (2017), The Impact of Targeted School Vouchers on Racial Stratification in Louisiana Schools. Education and Urban Society, 49(3), pp. 271–296, https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013124516643760 Jay P. Greene, Jonathan N. Mills, and Stuart Buck (2010), The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program’s Effect on School Integration (School Choice Demonstration Project Report 20), retrieved from University of Arkansas Department of Education Reform website: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/scdp/55/ Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters (2007), An Evaluation of the Effect of DC’s Voucher Program on Public School Achievement and Racial Integration After One Year. Journal of Catholic Education, 11(1), pp. 83–101,http://dx.doi.org/10.15365/ joce.1101072013 Greg Forster (2006), Segregation Levels in Cleveland Public Schools and the Cleveland Voucher Program. School Choice Issues in the State, retrieved from EdChoice website: http://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Segregation-Levels-in- Cleveland-Public-Schools-and-the-Cleveland-Voucher-Program.pdf Greg Forster (2006), Segregation Levels in Milwaukee Public Schools and the Milwaukee Voucher Program. School Choice Issues in the State, retrieved from EdChoice website: http://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Segregation-Levels-in- Milwaukee-Public-Schools-and-the-Milwaukee-Voucher-Program.pdf Howard L. Fuller and George A. Mitchell (2000), The Impact of School Choice on Integration in Milwaukee Private Schools. Current Education Issues 2000-02, retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED443939.pdf Jay P. Greene (1999), Choice and Community: The Racial, Economic and Religious Context of Parental Choice in Cleveland, retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ED441928.pdf Estelle Montgomery (2022), Iowa’s School Tuition Organization Tax Credits Program Evaluation Study, retrieved from Iowa Department of Revenue website: https://tax. iowa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022SchoolTuitionOrganizationTaxCreditStu dy.pdf Stéphane Lavertu and John J. Gregg (2022), The Ohio EdChoice Program’s Impact on School District Enrollments, Finances, and Academics, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, retrieved from Thomas B. Fordham Institute website: https://fordhaminstitute.org/ sites/default/files/publication/pdfs/edchoice-impact-report-12-14-22-web-final. pdf Dagney Faulk and Michael J. Hicks (2021), School Choice and State Spending on Education in Indiana, Ball State University, Center for Business and Economic Research, retrieved from Center for Business and Economic Researach Ball State University website: http://projects.cberdata.org/reports/SchoolSpendingChoice- 20210611web.pdf Martin F. Lueken (2021), The Fiscal Effects of Private K-12 Education Choice: Analyzing the costs and savings of private school choice programs in America, EdChoice, retrieved from EdChoice website: https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/ The-Fiscal-Effects-of-School-Choice-WEB-reduced.pdf ** This paper includes an update to the analysis from: Martin F. Lueken (2018), The Fiscal Effects of Tax-Credit Scholarship Programs in the United States, Journal of School Choice, 12(2), pp. 181–215, https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1558215 9.2018.1447725 Alexander Nikolov and A. Fletcher Mangum (2021), Scholarship Tax Credits in Virginia: Net Fiscal Impact of Virginia’s Education Improvement Scholarships Tax Credits Program, Mangum Economics, retrieved from Thomas Jefferson Institute of Public Policy website: http://www.thomasjeffersoninst.org/files/3/EISTC%20 Study%20FINAL.pdf Corey A. DeAngelis (2020), The Cost-effectiveness of Public and Private Schools of Choice in Wisconsin, Journal of School Choice, 15(2), pp. 225-247, https://doi.org/10 .1080/15582159.2020.1726164 Julie R. Trivitt and Corey A. DeAngelis (2020), Dollars and Sense: Calculating the Fiscal Effects of the Louisiana Scholarship Program, Journal of School Choice, https:// doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2020.1726704 Heidi Holmes Erickson and Benjamin Scafidi (2020), An Analysis of the Fiscal and Economic Impact of Georgia’s Qualified Education Expense (QEE) Tax Credit Scholarship Program, Education Economics Center, Kennesaw State University, retrieved from Education Economics Center of Kennesaw State University website: https://coles.kennesaw.edu/education-economics-center/docs/QEE-full-report.pdf Deborah Sheasby (2020), How the Arizona School Tuition Organization Tax Credits Save the State Money, retrieved from Center for Arizona Policy website: https://www. azpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/How-the-AZ-STO-Tax-Credits-Save- the-State-Money-2.pdf Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review (2020), 2020 Statutory Review of Mississippi’s Education Scholarship Account Program (Report 649), retrieved from https://www.peer.ms.gov/Reports/reports/rpt649.pdf Jacob Dearmon and Russell Evans (2018), Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Oklahoma Equal Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit, retrieved from Oklahoma City University website: https://www.okcu.edu/uploads/business/docs/Scholarship-Tuition-Tax- Credit-FY-2017-Fiscal-Impact-Report.pdf Julie R. Trivitt and Corey A. DeAngelis (2018), State-Level Fiscal Impact of the Succeed Scholarship Program 2017-2018, Arkansas Education Reports, 15(1), pp. 1–21, retrieved from http://scholarworks.uark.edu/oepreport/1 Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau (2018), Special Needs Scholarship Program: Department of Public Instruction (Report 18-6), retrieved from https://legis.wisconsin. gov/lab/media/2753/18-6full.pdf SummaSource (2017), Final Report: Analysis of the Financial Impact of the Alabama Accountability Act, SummaSource at Auburn University at Montgomery, retrieved from American Federation for Children website: https://www.federationforchildren. org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/AUM-Fiscal-Impact-Report.pdf Corey A. DeAngelis and Julie R. Trivitt (2016), Squeezing the Public School Districts: The Fiscal Effects of Eliminating the Louisiana Scholarship Program (EDRE Working Paper 2016-10), retrieved from University of Arkansas Department of Education Reform website: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=1019&context=scdp Jeff Spalding (2014), The School Voucher Audit: Do Publicly Funded Private School Choice Programs Save Money? Retrieved from EdChoice website: http://www. edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/The- School-Voucher-Audit-Do- Publicly-Funded-Private-School-Choice-Programs-Save-Money.pdf Patrick J. Wolf and Michael McShane (2013), Is the Juice Worth the Squeeze? A Benefit/Cost Analysis of the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program. Education Finance and Policy, 8(1), pp. 74–99, https://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ EDFP_a_00083 Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research (2012), Revenue Estimating Conference, retrieved from http://www.edr.state.fl.us/Content/conferences/ revenueimpact/archives/2012/pdf/page540-546.pdf Robert M. Costrell (2010), The Fiscal Impact of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program: 2010-2011 Update and Policy Options (SCDP Milwaukee Evaluation Report 22), retrieved from University of Arkansas Department of Education Reform website: https://scdp.uark.edu/files/2018/10/report-22-the-fiscal-impact-of-the-milwaukee- parental-choice-program-2010-2011-update-and-policy-options-24dyjxq.pdf John Merrifield and Nathan L. Gray (2009), An Evaluation of the CEO Horizon, 1998–2008, Edgewood Tuition Voucher Program. Journal of School Choice, 3(4), pp. 414–415, https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15582150903430764 OPPAGA (2008), The Corporate Tax Credit Scholarship Program Saves State Dollars (Report 08-68), retrieved from http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/0868rpt. pdf Collins Center for Public Policy (2007), The Florida Corporate Income Tax Credit Scholarship Program: Updated Fiscal Analysis, retrieved from https://www. stepupforstudents.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2007-collins-center-fiscal- analysis.pdf Susan L. Aud (2007), Education by the Numbers: The Fiscal Effect of School Choice Programs, 1990-2006. School Choice Issues in Depth, retrieved from EdChoice website: http://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Education-by-the- Numbers-Fiscal-Effect-of-School-Choice-Programs.pdf Susan L. Aud and Leon Michos (2006), Spreading Freedom and Saving Money: The Fiscal Impact of the D.C. Voucher Program, retrieved from EdChoice website: http:// www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Spreading-Freedom-and-Saving- Money-The-Fiscal-Impact-of-the-DC-Voucher-Program.pdf Ann Webber, Ning Rui, Roberta Garrison-Mogren, Robert B. Olsen, and Babette Gutmann (2019), Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts Three Years After Students Applied (NCEE 2019-4006), Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ED594875.pdf Corey A. DeAngelis and Martin F. Lueken (2019), School Sector and Climate: An Analysis of K–12 Safety Policies and School Climates in Indiana, Social Science Quarterly, 101(1), pp. 376-405, https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12737 Patrick Wolf et al. (2010), Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Final Report (NCEE 2010-4018), Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED510451.pdf John F. Witte, Patrick J. Wolf, Joshua M. Cowen, David J. Fleming, and Juanita Lucas- McLean (2008), MPCP Longitudinal Educational Growth Study: Baseline Report (SCDP Milwaukee Evaluation Report 5), retrieved from University of Arkansas Department of Education Reform website: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=1076&context=scdp William G. Howell and Paul E. Peterson (2002), The Education Gap: Vouchers and Urban Schools, retrieved from JSTOR website: https://www.jstor.org/ stable/10.7864/j.ctt128086 Paul E. Peterson, and David E. Campbell (2001), An Evaluation of the Children’s Scholarship Fund, PEPG report 01-03, Harvard University, retrieved from https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED453308.pdf

You don’t need me to tell you it was extremely cold the last few weeks. But what you may not know is how close the region came to rolling blackouts due to the stresses on the power grid from the perfect storm of high demand as families tried to stay warm and the drop of available power from intermittent sources like wind. Thankfully clean renewable hydropower and other baseload sources like natural gas and nuclear kept us from all looking like Jack Torrance from The Shining. Here are some of the concerning details in Washington and Montana over the last few weeks during the extreme cold. From the Washington Policy Center: “As temperatures plummeted across Washington state on January 13, PSE sent a notice to customers asking them to reduce their use of electricity and natural gas. The notice said, ‘Due to the extreme cold temperatures facing our area, regional utilities are experiencing higher energy use than forecasted, and we need to reduce strain on the grid.' As demand from customers across the Northwest increased (the red line on the chart), wind-generated electricity, listed as ‘VER’ on the chart, fell significantly. Data from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) shows that demand increased significantly during Friday and peaked on Saturday. Hydro power made up the difference, increasing from about 6,800 megawatt hours (MWh) at its peak on Thursday to over 10,300 MWh on Saturday night – an increase of 52 percent. Between 9 am and 9 pm on Saturday, wind-generated electricity fell from 876 MWh to 129 MWh. Just two days earlier, wind turbines were creating more than 2,500 MWh across the BPA system. As the cold front moved in on late Thursday along with the cold temperatures, wind power disappeared.” The Tri-City Herald noted: “The Bonneville Power Administration asked Energy Northwest to use ‘no touch’ protocols for its nuclear power reactor starting Wednesday, Jan. 10, as a precaution against any reduction of power production . . . Grant PUD on Monday afternoon asked its customers to reduce electricity use for the next 36 hours to avoid the potential for local and regional outages until temperatures warm. ‘Frigid temperatures throughout Grant County and the Pacific Northwest this past week have pushed energy use to record levels, strained many regional electric grids, and put a heavy draw on our region’s capacity to generate electricity,’ it told customers Monday.” A similar warning occurred in Montana during the extreme cold weather: “The record-breaking cold snap Montana saw this month brought days of below-zero temperatures across the state — and with them what major Montana utility NorthWestern Energy said was record-high electric demand from its customers. The arctic blast, and how the state’s energy system responded, triggered a wave of analysis from folks engaged in Montana’s running debate over renewable energy, coal generation and the future of the state’s electric grid . . . NorthWestern pointed in a Jan. 17 press release to a later, colder stretch of the cold snap, stressing that it had relied heavily on Colstrip, natural gas plants and hydroelectric dam generation to keep electricity flowing to Montana customers. ‘Wind and solar generation could not produce much, if any, power during the extreme cold,’ wrote NorthWestern spokesperson Jo Dee Black.” Meanwhile, along with efforts by some in Washington state to remove hydropower-producing dams, the state House this week passed a bill to essentially ban the use of natural gas in the state: “The bill would ban any gas company that serves more than 500,000 customers — specifically, Puget Sound Energy (PSE) — from connecting new natural gas lines to new residential or commercial buildings — with limited exemptions for certain manufacturing, medical care, correctional, and military facilities. PSE would also no longer be required to provide natural gas service to existing customers, which state law currently mandates. The bill says the ban applies to any new construction after June 30th, 2023. If approved, it would take effect immediately, due to an emergency clause included in the measure.” This proposal has drawn strong concern from builders in Washington: “Not even two weeks have passed since thousands of Washington families fought bitter cold winter weather causing PSE to ask them to curb their energy use to reduce strain on the grid. Removing natural gas as a source of heating homes and water will cause our electrical grid to fail,” Greg Lane, executive vice president of the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW), said. As for efforts to remove hydropower-producing dams in our region, a congressional hearing will be held on January 30 by the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee. The Chairs of that committee said in a press release: “The Columbia River System and the Lower Snake River Dams are the beating heart of the Pacific Northwest, yet that hasn’t stopped the Biden administration from apparently colluding with special interest groups to lay the groundwork to remove them. We are deeply disturbed by the blatant disregard for the enormous hydropower, irrigation, and navigation benefits these dams provide, as well as a willingness to ignore the voices of those who depend on the dams the most. It’s past time for full transparency from the Biden administration.” Diversification efforts of the power grid are a worthy goal if they don’t come at the expense of reliable baseload power. The same grid reliability problems that occur with intermittent power sources during periods of extreme cold are also present during extreme heat when families are trying to stay cool. When families try to stay warm during an arctic blast or try to stay cool during extreme heat, we need to make sure the power is reliably and economically available for them. Additional Information Idaho supports the vital economic and environmental importance of the Snake River dams

A new poll by Boise State University shows public support for increasing education choice options in Idaho. These results are similar to a 2022 poll conducted by MSPC. Here is the question BSU asked: The wording of this question is interesting. The current refundable tax credit proposal under consideration in Idaho does not remove funding from the K-12 budget. Idaho State Representative Wendy Horman and Idaho State Senator Lori Den Hartog plan to introduce a bill this legislative session that would permit refundable tax credits of up to $5,000 for families to offset the cost of school tuition and other education-related expenses. Because the credit would be refundable, even those who don't necessarily have a large tax liability would benefit. Rep. Horman and Sen. Den Hartog said the concept would not strip any money from public schools. It is encouraging that the BSU poll didn’t use the misleading “voucher” phrasing to ask about support for education choice. No one who supports or opposes education choice options or covers the topic should use the term “voucher” unless an actual voucher bill is introduced. Doing so is simply inaccurate and on such an important topic, clarity is crucial. National polling has consistently shown providing more education choice options to families is popular across party lines and various demographics. This is also true in Idaho. Here are the results from MSPC’s 2022 poll: We will be updating this statewide poll in December 2024. Here are some of the other interesting results from the BSU Idaho Public Policy Survey: Concerning property taxes, we’re encouraging Idaho lawmakers to consider adopting Truth in Taxation to help provide more transparency. As we previously discussed, 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. Interestingly, there is currently an effort moving through the Alaska state legislature to repeal ranked choice voting in that state. There is also a separate repeal measure in the process of being certified for the Alaska ballot. A voter guide usually provides basic demographic and background information about candidates, generally in their own words, to help voters have a standardized reference for learning more about those seeking office. Providing a statewide voter guide is not only popular with Idahoans but is also a best practice that all states should consider to help provide voters with the information they need to make informed decisions about those wishing to represent them.

While there is much to celebrate about Idaho’s recent success, one policy proposal aimed at protecting children could actually prove costly for citizens’ free speech. The legislature this session is likely to consider numerous online speech regulations that have already been deemed a violation of the First Amendment in other states. Policymakers have referenced Utah and Arkansas’ recently passed social media legislation. Both states created significant legal liability for certain types of content, mandated internet users hand over their sensitive, private data to confirm their identities, and in Utah’s case, required certain internet services to be shut off every evening. These are not the types of measures we should be considering in Idaho. Why? Because, while they were well-intentioned, all these bills have invited enormous legal scrutiny. Utah, Arkansas, Ohio and California were all sued, and lost. In Arkansas, U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Brooks agreed the legislation was an unacceptable affront to free speech, saying that the “loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for minimal periods of time, constitute[s] irreparable injury," and that there was “no compelling evidence” that children would be protected by the legislation. A judge in California took the state to task for claiming their speech regulation bill would somehow improve childrens’ privacy. Judge Beth Labson Freeman said that age verification mandates are “likely to exacerbate the problem by inducing…children to divulge additional personal information.” Every time these bills have been challenged, they have failed to withstand even basic constitutional scrutiny. S. 1222 has already been introduced in the Idaho Senate. It would place a government-mandated speech filter on every device, like a smartphone, activated in the state. The goal is to block young people from consuming inappropriate content, but the technology would end up closing off lots of protected speech, too, and affect the way adults can use the internet. Censorship regimes like this were attempted before at the federal level in 1996 and struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. There is no reason to believe that this time would be any different. Last year, conservative states like Tennessee considered similar proposals and rejected them. Ensuring our children are safe online is of critical importance. No sane person denies this. But an important question for every American to ask themselves is: have I made my child safer by weakening their constitutional rights and empowering the government to be my co-parent? The answer is clearly not. We can easily institute campaigns to raise parent awareness of online services currently available to protect their children. Tech companies have introduced various ideas to help with the effort as well. But it should be noted that filters, blockers, and screen time monitors already exist and don’t come with draconian government mandates. We can also follow other states like Florida in implementing digital literacy and safety into school curricula. Improving outcomes for young Idahoans and keeping them safe online requires work–work that is worth doing. But it is important that the efforts we undertake will lead us to our desired outcomes and not just result in press releases and empty sentiment. Passing a bill that will inevitably be struck down as violating the First Amendment won’t make a single child safer. Instead, we need to do the hard work, together, of finding policy solutions that place the family, not the government, at the center of a child’s upbringing, and give them safety tools they can use free of government coercion or censorship.

As homeless populations surge to over 580,000 nationally, with high concentrations in the western states, the rules for assisting our most vulnerable populations have become very tenuous. A recent announcement by the Supreme Court is likely to bring some clarity to the tools local governments use in managing homeless populations. On January 12, 2024 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Johnson v. City of Grants Pass, addressing what tools local governments can use in dissuading homeless populations from camping on public property. The case was originally brought as Blake v. City of Grants Pass in the ninth circuit court, but after the original plaintiff’s death, two new plaintiffs continued the appeal under Johnson. The upcoming Supreme Court case contests the opinion from the ninth circuit court that civil citations for public encampments and sleeping are considered ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ under the eighth amendment.[1] The application of the eighth amendment’s ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ clause is likely to be a pivotal issue in the upcoming case. The case began when the City of Grants Pass enforced city ordinances that prevented camping and sleeping in public parks, by issuing civil citations and fines to violators. The plaintiffs in the case contested the citations received under these ordinances as ‘cruel and unusual punishment,’ claiming that no other option for sleeping existed for them. Stretching the use of the ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ clause under the eighth amendment, the ninth circuit court of appeals complicated and limited the options available to municipalities in addressing the homelessness crisis in their region. The ninth circuit court decided a similar case, Martin v. Boise, in 2018. Martin v. Boise severely limiting the ability of cities in enforcing anti-camping ordinances and tying the hands of local residents, businesses, and law enforcement from discouraging encampments. Johnson v. City of Grants Pass extends the reach of Martin v. Boise. Martin v. Boise prohibits cities from criminally citing individuals for camping on public property, if there is no shelter available to them. The court found that a criminal citation for sleeping in public areas is a “cruel and unusual punishment.”[2] The decision removed a tool available to local governments attempting to curb public encampments and sets the ninth circuit region at odds with precedence from the rest of the country. The City of Boise eventually settled with the plaintiffs in 2021, designating $1.3 million for homeless shelters and repaying $435,000 for the plaintiffs’ attorney fees, and $5,000 in damages to plaintiffs. In an additional opinion, regarding the rehearing of Martin v. Boise by the ninth circuit court, Judge M. Smith, along with six other judges, dissents stating, “The panel’s reasoning will soon prevent local governments from enforcing a host of other public health and safety laws, such as those prohibiting public defecation and urination. Perhaps most unfortunately, the panel’s opinion shackles the hands of public officials trying to redress the serious societal concern of homelessness.”[3] The recent announcement of the upcoming Supreme Court hearing in Johnson v. City of Grants Pass has generated national interest. Democratic and Republican interests are teaming up in support of Grants Pass, hoping for clarity and options for municipalities to manage the growing homeless encampments. Governor Gavin Newsom of California said, “California has invested billions to address homelessness, but rulings from the bench have tied the hands of state and local governments to address this issue. The supreme court can now correct course and end the costly delays from lawsuits that have plagued our efforts to clear encampments and deliver services to those in need.” An Oregon law passed in 2021, would prevent any ruling from the Supreme Court from affecting practices in the state of Oregon. However, the other ninth circuit states will benefit from clarity on how to legally address homelessness and help those in need. The dissenting opinion in Johnson v. City of Grants Pass reads, “Further, it is hard to deny that Martin has “generate[d] dire practical consequences for the hundreds of local governments within our jurisdiction, and for the millions of people that reside therein.” These ‘dire consequences’ need to be addressed immediately for the nation to move forward in addressing housing. Research proves that addressing the housing shortage and cost increases is the best way to remediate homelessness. However, tying the hands of municipalities in managing homeless residents is only intensifying the consequences of homelessness. The anticipated ruling from the Supreme Court will hopefully give this clarity to local governments. [1] https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/09/28/20-35752.pdf [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/15-35845/15-35845-2018-09-04.html [3] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/15-35845/15-35845-2019-04-01.html

Have you spent all of the balances on gift cards you received for Christmas? If not, the government is here to help. Some Washington state legislators want the state to adopt what’s being called the “Washington Gift Card Accountability” bill. Apparently, they think it’s a big issue when you leave balances on your gift cards for too long. Gift card spending alone last year hit nearly $30 billion – an average of about $50 per card and $167 per person, according to the National Retail Federation. Most of us won’t spend that money right away. In fact, there’s a good chance you have a gift card with a balance somewhere around your home. So, who does that balance belong to? The answer, of course, is you, even if it is hidden in a drawer somewhere. But the government answer is a little more complicated. You see, in some other states retailers must return that unspent gift card balance. But there’s a catch. It doesn’t just go back to you in the form of a check – it must go through the state’s unclaimed property programs. And if you don’t know it’s in that program or how to claim it, well then that’s just too bad. But rest assured, the government will be glad to spend it. Activists bemoan the fact that gift card balances are claimed as “revenues” to companies like Starbucks. They call this a “loophole.” Instead, they want the money to be used for “public good.” Under the legislation, a gift card becomes state unclaimed property if it remains unclaimed for more than three years after becoming payable or distributable. In other words, you’ve got 36 months – and you’re on the clock. It’s easy to understand why this is bad public policy. If your grandmother gives you a sweater for Christmas, and you never use it, does the government get to seize that too? The real issue seems to be the distain some legislators have for letting companies claim gift card balances as revenues. But Washington state law already provides that gift cards can never expire, so what problem, exactly, are we trying to solve? The responsibility, ultimately, lies with the consumer who owns the gift card. If they choose not to spend it at any given time, that is their choice. Maybe they’re saving up, or perhaps they just don’t shop at the place where they received the gift certificate. Either way, it doesn’t mean that they want it to go to the government.

As the 2024 legislative sessions begin, state lawmakers are turning their attention to the intricate landscape of artificial intelligence (AI). Alongside the expected influx of AI-related bills, state regulators are gearing up for the widespread adoption of AI tools. During the 2023 legislative session, approximately 25 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia introduced bills related to artificial intelligence, with 15 states and Puerto Rico adopting resolutions or enacting legislation. Of the 25 states, Washington was the only state to begin delving into this discussion in the Mountain States region. The issues they looked into included the "Charter of Peoples Personal Data Rights" and the "Use of Automated Decision Systems" as found by the Artificial Intelligence 2023 Legislation tracker. Many states will take a bite at the apple in managing or controlling the access and usage of AI tools. A recent development in this arena comes from the California Privacy Protection Agency, which has released preliminary regulations surrounding businesses' deployment of "automated decision-making technology," warning of implications far beyond the tech sector. The proposed regulations in California aim to establish a comprehensive framework for governing the implementation of ADMT, leveraging personal information for decision-making or serving as a surrogate for human decision-making. If this isn't giving you Will Smith "I, Robot" vibes, I'm not sure what else will. Graphic by Morning MultiState State lawmakers are increasingly focused on understanding both the benefits and challenges posed by AI. A growing number of measures are being introduced to study the impact of AI or algorithms and explore potential roles for policymakers. Our policymakers must establish clear guidelines for liability in cases where AI systems cause harm or errors. This can be done through contractual agreements or industry-led initiatives, reducing the need for extensive government intervention. Policymakers need to encourage the setup of independent bodies in the AI field that don't just talk the talk but walk the walk when it comes to enforcing high standards. These groups must help our elected officials lay down comprehensive guidelines. Think of them as the playbook for AI. These rules should serve as a compass, guiding everyone in the AI landscape to develop cutting-edge tech responsibly and treat all stakeholders fairly. These groups can't operate in silos. They should communicate openly with the wider community, seek input from diverse perspectives, and be transparent about their actions. Inclusion is key—everyone should have a say in shaping the ethical direction of AI. It is imperative to actively encourage and support comprehensive initiatives aimed at educating the public on AI technologies, elucidating both their advantages and potential risks. The focus should be on empowering individuals to make informed decisions. By providing the public with a deep understanding of AI's intricacies, consumers are better equipped to assess its applications, benefits, and associated risks. This knowledge empowers them to make choices aligned with their values and preferences. Transparency about how AI systems operate, the data they use, and the potential societal impacts fosters a sense of trust. Trust is foundational for the widespread acceptance and adoption of AI technologies. Public awareness initiatives should also address common misconceptions or fears associated with AI. Clarifying these concerns helps in dispelling myths, reducing apprehension, and fostering a more constructive dialogue between the public, industry, and policymakers. It's important to note that while free-market approaches emphasize minimal government intervention, there are also arguments for certain regulatory measures to address specific concerns such as bias, discrimination, and privacy. Striking the right balance between fostering innovation and protecting public interests remains a key challenge in the evolving landscape of AI regulation. Transparency isn't just a buzzword; it's the bedrock of trust in the AI landscape. This is why at Mountain States Policy Center we have emphasized its importance. Companies should embrace and accentuate the need to be open about how their AI works. When companies willingly disclose their AI algorithms, they're essentially saying, "Here's how our magic works." This transparency builds trust with consumers and businesses, creating a transparent ecosystem where AI is not a mysterious black box but a comprehensible and trustworthy tool, and allows our elected officials to make informed and educated decisions... or at least that is the hope.

The state of Washington is suing to stop the merger of Kroger and Albertsons. Bob Ferguson – who serves as Washington’s Attorney General and is also running to become Washington’s next governor – claims the “merger is bad for Washington shoppers and workers.” Ferguson says “free enterprise is built on companies competing, and that competition benefits consumers. Shoppers will have fewer choices and less competition, and without a competitive marketplace, they will pay higher prices at the grocery store. That’s not right, and this lawsuit seeks to stop this harmful merger.” Let’s take a closer look at some of the claims Ferguson is making. “Free enterprise is built on companies competing, and that competition benefits consumers. Shoppers will have fewer choices and less competition.” Indeed, free enterprise is all about competition. Walmart, Amazon and Costco are now the major players in the grocery marketplace. Chances are, you’ve purchased an item at one of the three over the past 30 days. In fact, Walmart/Sam’s Club make up nearly a third – 30 percent – of the U.S. grocery market share. Costco tallies another 7 percent. Amazon is moving quickly and accounts for more than 5 percent. And consider this: Amazon Prime, Walmart+ and Costco have more than 250 million subscriptions. Even if the Albertsons-Kroger merger proceeds, it would account for just 9 percent of nationwide sales, according to the International Center for Law and Economics. But what it would do is get the attention of the big three – increasing competition with their 42% of the current market share. “They will pay higher prices at the grocery store.” The truth is the merger of the chains will likely lower costs because they will be directly competing against each other. An economist with the Strategic Resource Group recently told Yahoo Finance "Kroger’s acquisition of Albertsons is the last, best, and final chance to level the playing field." Why now? The timing of the lawsuit is curious. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is reviewing the sale to make sure it complies with antitrust laws. This is exactly what they should be doing. A decision is expected in the next month. Filing a lawsuit before the FTC issues a decision is a bit like a coach demanding instant replay while the play is still running. In a statement, Kroger says "We believe our merger with Albertsons and the comprehensive divestiture to C&S will result in the best outcomes for customers, associates and our communities." Store closures? Kroger and Albertsons are cognizant of criticisms of the deal. The chains say they will sell 413 stores and eight distribution centers to address any questions about a monopoly in certain communities. In fact, a review of all of the Albertsons and Kroger locations throughout the country shows very few places where the two stores both have locations. Albertsons and Kroger have announced plans to sell off stores to another company to ensure there are fewer concerns about competition. The recent announcement ensures no stores will close as a result. Previous suit not successful This isn’t the first time Bob Ferguson has filed suit against Albertsons and Kroger. The Washington AG tried to stop a dividend paid to Albertsons shareholders following the announcement of the merger. That suit was not successful. Bottom line In a union-heavy state like Washington, there is no doubt concern about the impact the merger would have on unions. Ironically, the blocking of the merger would only help retailers like Walmart and Amazon – which are non-union. Washington state has been hostile to the idea of a merger for several months. Some legislators have even filed legislation requiring workers must be kept on the job for at least 180 days. As with any proposal, there is fear of the unknown. But we shouldn't let fear destroy an opportunity to increase competition and improve the outlook for the consumer.

Week one of the 2024 Legislative Session is in the books. One quick takeaway, Idaho should learn from some of the legislative transparency best practices from neighboring states to help improve citizen involvement in their governance. For example, I attempted last week to signup for email notification of committee hearings and agendas. It was more difficult to do than in other states. Without a master listserv signup, I was directed to signup in Idaho committee by committee. There was also a required “waiting” period between each signup. It took me a full 3 days to complete the process due to the waiting requirement for all the committees and I’ve yet to receive a single email update. Here is the information that is posted on the legislative website: “Have notifications e-mailed to me for all agendas and minutes when they are published for every meeting held by this committee. *The notification e-mail will contain the committee name, date and time of the meeting held, and a link to the agenda or minutes .pdf document. Please note that you are subscribing to committee agendas and minutes for the 2024 legislative session year. And please note, subscriptions do not renew, you must re-subscribe every new legislative session. You will know when a new legislative session begins by the year listed in front of the committee name.” I track several state legislatures across the country. Idaho is the only one that doesn’t use a master email listserv while also requiring you to resubscribe after every session. Here is an example of how easy it is to use the master signup process for the Washington legislature. Montana uses the same simple process. Wyoming also uses a master email listserv. Here are examples of the emails I received this week from the Wyoming and Montana legislatures. When committee action is scheduled on a bill, this type of email notification is provided in Washington. Along with an easy way to signup for committee agendas, those following legislative action in Washington can see copies of what amendments are being considered by committees. Washington’s legislature also posts all floor amendments in advance of votes so that citizens can see what is being considered. Our recommendation is for Idaho to adopt the following legislative transparency best practices: Utilize a master email listserv subscription for all committees Subscription notifications do not expire after session Provide a 3-day notice for all public hearings and agendas (automatically emailed to those subscribed) Post all bill amendments in advance for committees and floor action Post the room number on the legislative website where lawmaker offices are located at the capitol building While these are opportunities for improvement, it is important to note that Idaho does provide options for remote testimony and streaming of committee meetings and floor action. As reported by the Idaho Capital Sun: “Streaming coverage of the Idaho Legislature is available on the Idaho in Session website. Committee agendas and reading calendars for the Idaho House of Representatives and Idaho Senate are posted daily on the Idaho Legislature’s website. Most committee agendas now include a link to watch the correct streaming coverage of that meeting.” I’ve inquired with Idaho’s Legislative Service Office (LSO) to learn if the state’s unique way of signing up for committee agendas and notification is a policy decision or a technology issue. I haven’t heard back yet but I understand LSO is very busy with the session. Either way, efforts should be made to help make it easier for citizens to track and be involved in the legislative process. Additional Information Idaho lawmakers should provide at least 3-day notice of bills scheduled for public hearing Lawmaking in Idaho – How the Gem State’s Legislative Process Works

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Idaho State Representative Wendy Horman and Idaho State Senator Lori Den Hartog announced Friday they will be introducing a bill this legislative session that would permit refundable tax credits of up to $5,000 for families to offset the cost of school tuition and other education-related expenses. Because the credit would be refundable, even those who don't necessarily have a large tax liability would benefit. The "Parental Choice Tax Credit" calls for a $40 million cap, on a first come, first serve basis, with an additional $10 million being set aside for low income families. In total, it's $50 million, which, if you compared to the state's K-12 budget, equals less than one half of one percent. For the vast majority of those who like their public schools, nothing would change. In fact, it is likely that fewer than 5% of Idaho children would take advantage of the tax credits. But for those who do, for those who need options other than the traditional public school setting, it could be a game changer. The program would be overseen by the State Tax Commission, and would contain the same type of accountability as anyone in the state would face to be truthful on their taxes. Tax credits or tax credit scholarships are not unusual in the education choice arena. In fact, ten other states offer similar programs: Alabama Accountability Act of 2013 Parent-Taxpayer Refundable Tax Credits 44 participating students Average tax credit: $3,478 Illinois Tax Credits for Educational Expenses 210,224 participating taxpayers Average tax credit: $322 Indiana Private School/Homeschool Deduction 57,878 participating taxpayers Average tax credit: $1,835 Iowa Tuition and Textbook Tax Credit 104,641 participating taxpayers Average tax credit: $134 Louisiana Elementary and Secondary School Tuition Deduction 64,411 participating taxpayers Average tax credit: $5,922 Minnesota Education Deduction 145,623 participating taxpayers Average tax credit: $1,307 Minnesota K–12 Education Credit 18,191 participating taxpayers Average tax credit: $287 Ohio K–12 Home Education Tax Credit For all homeschooling students Tax credit: $250 Ohio K–12 Nonchartered Private School Tax Credit For all families participating in non-chartered public school Tax credit: $1,500 Oklahoma Oklahoma Parental Choice Tax Credit Act Launching this year South Carolina Refundable Educational Credit for Exceptional Needs Children 213 participating taxpayers Average tax credit: $9,390 Wisconsin K–12 Private School Tuition Deduction 32,410 participating taxpayers Average tax credit: $5,055 Research shows the key is to make sure the tax credits range from $3,000 to $6,000 to ensure the credit is large enough to help cover a family's decision to change schooling options. As Rep. Horman and Sen. Den Hartog said on Friday, the concept would not strip money any money from public schools. It is, in fact, complementary. The program is also very different from previous Education Savings Account or ESA proposals - where the state would administer funds that parents could use on eligible expenses. Neither the tax credit nor ESA proposals are "vouchers." It is intentionally misleading to say so. Polling has shown providing more education choice options to families is popular across party lines and various demographics. That is true in Idaho and across the nation as well. We have a unique opportunity to put political divisions aside and create a unique Idaho-centered plan. The goal needs to be the education of Idaho’s children so that they can be productive citizens and workers and lead enriched lives. If more education choice can help improve the educational outcomes of just one child, it’s worth trying. Idaho's proposed "Parental Choice Tax Credit" is a step in the right direction.

I have two boys at home. I’m used to repeatedly hearing something that isn’t true, in hopes that I’ll believe it. So, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by the misleading phrasing from those opposed to giving families more education options. When a new proposal was announced last week to provide Idaho families with an education tax credit – something that exists in both red and blue states and would not take any funding from public schools – those opposed to more education options called it a “universal school voucher scheme.” (Sounds scary!) During the last legislative session, every time legislators put forward various ideas to expand options for students, those opposed screamed “voucher.” Sometimes, even the media would call a proposal a voucher – even if it really wasn’t. It seems no matter what policy is introduced, there are some who will always call it a “voucher.” Why the constant refrain? The simplest explanation is that the term “voucher” is not popular in public opinion research. The dictionary defines voucher as a “form or check indicating a credit against future purchases or expenditures.” By the very definition, tax credits are not vouchers. Education Savings Accounts are not vouchers. In fact, no one in Idaho has proposed a school voucher. A voucher program would only let parents use taxpayer dollars to pay for tuition at a private school approved by the state. Typically, the state writes a “form or check” to a school in the name of a student to cover tuition. An Education Savings Account is much different. First, money is held in an account by the state - it is not given directly to schools. Second, an ESA allows parents to use a portion of state funding on a variety of education services. Yes, it can include private school tuition, but it can also include tutoring, special needs services, curriculum, mental health treatment and much more - so long as it is for an educational purpose. Tax credits are even more simple. Essentially, it can work like a tax deduction for your mortgage interest or even a child tax credit. And it's completely separate from any public school funding. In the end, tax credits are given to parents directly, ESA's are given to parents via a state fund, and vouchers are given to schools or a specific institution by "form or check." No one who supports or opposes education choice options or covers the topic should use the term “voucher” unless an actual voucher bill is introduced. Doing so is simply inaccurate and on such an important topic, the clarity is crucial. Regardless of the proposal, the goal is to meet the educational needs of all children in a fair, responsible, transparent, and accountable way. The debate around efforts to expand options for students and families with enhanced education choice opportunities whether through ESAs, tax credits, or by expanding eligibility for Empowering Parents grants should focus on the policy and not be shrouded in misleading terms. There will be a variety of education choice bills introduced in the 2024 Idaho Legislative session. Hopefully, lawmakers can come up with a plan that uniquely fits Idaho and helps more students succeed. But no matter what they come up with, like the little boy who cried wolf, those opposed to new education options will likely still cry voucher.

This Christmas, Santa brought my 16 year old a new phone, which caused a bit of jealousy in his younger, more irresponsible brother. Deciding when to let your child jump into that tech world is not easy. No matter how many rules your family may have, it is still natural to worry about what your children will find, or who they’ll talk to, online. It has been more than a quarter century since Congress passed a law to protect kids online. In 1998, less than half the country was even connected to the internet, and those who were likely used AOL. There was no Facebook. There was no social media. Today, more than half of teenagers say it would be difficult to give up their social media time, according to Pew Research polling. Half of parents are worried about what their child is being exposed to online. As legislatures convene here at home and across the country, there will no doubt be an onslaught of proposed laws aimed at protecting kids online. Few will doubt the good intentions of these proposed policies. In Idaho last session, a bill would have required “manufacturers of internet-capable devises to install and active technology that enables parents to make filtering decisions.” A new law in Utah requires social media companies to obtain parental consent for those under 18. And if the parent does consent, they are given full access to their child’s social media accounts. Meantime, Colorado’s governor says he would not back state-imposed restrictions. And other states have a bevy of restrictions and proposed laws. Social media and the internet are very much mobile. It would be nearly impossible for companies to create 50 different oversight mechanisms to comply with every state’s preference. And even if they did, teens and families move fluidly across state lines. A patchwork of laws would mean they are inconsistently protected. That’s why, at the very least, Congress needs to work with tech providers to create a standard for the national marketplace to ensure uniform protection for kids’ online health and safety. One idea put forward by Meta – the parent company of Facebook – is to require parental consent for teens under 16 at the app store level. What does this mean? Essentially, parents would have to approve any download of an app other than general items such as search or email. Age verification would be completed at the app store level – which would ensure kids are placed in the appropriate app experience. All apps would need to be treated consistently. Another proposal would require ad targeting standards that would limit the personalization of ads to those under 16 to age and location only. This means advertisers and videos that may be questionable could not be targeted to kids under 16. These are common sense proposals that recognize the complexity of the issue. There will likely be many more on the way. We need to protect kids online while not stifling innovation and advancement in the coming years. A patchwork of laws is messy. One national standard that puts parents, not the government, in the driver's seat, would be best.

Governor Brad Little opened Idaho’s 2024 Legislative Session today by providing his State of the State address. Here are some of the notable fiscal pull quotes from his address: “We are the least regulated state. We are one of the safest states in the union. We rank first for income growth. We have delivered more tax relief per capita than any other state. Idaho is one of the most fiscally responsible states, and we’re recognized for our ability to withstand any economic downturn. We’re number one for economic momentum. We’re a top ten state for best economy, rivaling Florida and Texas. In fact, Florida, Texas, and Idaho are the top three best states for small businesses. And on issues where it’s important to take a stand, Idaho has led the charge.” “We must continue to lead the nation in fiscal responsibility, tax relief, and strategic investments to keep up with record growth. Idaho’s record population growth and in-migration comes with both opportunities and challenges, and I get why people are flocking here from other places. In fact, I can think of 3.7 billion reasons why people are coming here. We are on pace to deliver $3.7 billion in tax relief, and we’re not done yet. With the surplus eliminator passed last session, our budget this year includes up to $150 million in new property tax relief, on top of the hundreds of millions in property tax relief we’ve already deployed to date.” “Idaho is in the top 10 for the lowest taxes in the nation. We have the third lowest property taxes in the country, and we just deployed another $300 million in relief to Idaho property owners last year. No other state in the country has given more tax relief per capita than Idaho.” “I am signing on as a member of the Governors Debt Council for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The runaway freight train of federal spending has got to stop. It's not right. It's not what the founders envisioned for our great country. The U.S. Constitution gives the states the power to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment, and in the coming weeks I will announce new steps we’ll take to force Congress to live within the people's means.” A handout provided by the Governor’s office also notes these budget priorities: “Invests in accountability and achievement by providing $40 million in outcome-based funding to schools. Funding will be targeted to schools meeting priority goals in proficiency and growth in early literacy and math, and the number of high school graduates earning credentials for success in the workforce or postsecondary education.” “Accelerates charter schools by eliminating red tape, increasing autonomy for high performers, and providing $605k to enroll those schools in need of performance enhancement in appropriate support services.” “The Governor recommends an additional $125 million of state funding for ongoing property tax relief to be directed to local school districts to defray the costs of unmet capital construction needs. This is expected to provide more than $1 billion in long-term property tax relief.” “Limits growth in General Fund spending to 2.2% over FY 2024 levels, one of the most fiscally conservative budgets in years.” “Bolsters rainy-day funds by $24 million to ensure the state is prepared for future economic downturns, keeping the state at the maximum level allowed under its primary rainy-day fund.” “Leaves a surplus (>$250 million) in both budgeted years to provide a greater cushion against economic uncertainty.” “Maintains a structurally balanced budget over a five-year horizon using a fiscal stress test that accounts for the probability of a recession.” Additional Information Idaho lawmakers receive update on state’s fiscal outlook MSPC’s top recommendations for Idaho’s 2024 Legislative Session MSPC’s legislative preview update

How do the legislatures in the Mountain States work? To answer this question, we are checking with legislative officials in Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming. MSPC sent the same questions about the legislative process to each state. Here is the response we received from the Wyoming Legislative Service Office (LSO). The questions we posed are in italics. Length of legislative session/special sessions – When do regular legislative sessions begin and how long are they scheduled for? How is a special session called and how long can that session run? Wyoming LSO: “Articles 3, Section 6 of the Wyoming Constitution provides that the Legislature shall not meet for more than sixty (60) legislative working days, excluding Sundays, over a biennium, or two-year period. Generally, the Legislature meets for forty (40) legislative working days during a General Session, and twenty (20) legislative working days during a Budget Session. General Sessions start on the second Tuesday of January in odd-numbered years, and Budget Sessions start on the second Monday of February in even-numbered years. Special Sessions can be called by either the Governor or the Legislature and cannot last longer than twenty (20) working days. This is in accordance with Article 3, Section 7 of the Wyoming Constitution.” Bill introduction process/restrictions– What is the bill introduction process and are there any restrictions on when or how many bills can be introduced? Wyoming LSO: “A bill is read in and referred to a committee as determined by the presiding officer in each chamber. A 2/3 introductory vote is required during a Budget Session. During a General Session, there are no limits to how many bills a Representative can sponsor in the House, and a limit of seven (7) bills that Senators can offer for introduction in the Senate. During a Budget Session, Representatives can only sponsor five (5) bills for introduction in the House (House Rule 13-3), and Senators can only sponsor three (3) bills for introduction in the Senate (Senate Rule 13-3). Wyoming Constitution Article 3, Section 22 provides that no bill for the appropriation of money except for the expenses of the government shall be introduced within five days of the close of the session, except by unanimous consent of the body in which introduction is attempted. It has been the past custom of the legislature that this constitutional provision only applies to a regular general or budget session of the legislature, not to a special session. During a Budget Session, no bill shall be accepted for consideration after noon on the third (3rd) legislative day except by unanimous consent of the membership in the Senate and by two-thirds of the membership in the House. No bill shall be considered for introduction (i.e., presented to the Senate or House for an introductory vote) after 5:00 p.m. (Senate) or 6:00 p.m. (House) on the fifth (5th) legislative day except by unanimous consent of the membership in the Senate and by 2/3rds of the membership in the House. (See H.R. 13-2; S.R. 13-2.) During a General Session, no bill shall be considered for introduction after 5:00 p.m. on the twelve (12th) legislative day in the Senate, or after 6:00 p.m. on the fifteen (15th) legislative day in the House. (See H.R. 4-5(b); S.R. 4-5(b).)” Bill reports/fiscal notes– Are bill reports and fiscal notes made available publicly before committee/floor action on a bill? Wyoming LSO: “Wyoming Statute 28-8-105(d) requires the Legislative Service Office (LSO) to provide a fiscal note for each bill ‘having a fiscal impact, indicating fiscal and personnel impact and revenue generated or required’ by the bill. A fiscal note is a statement attached to every formal bill draft that provides an estimate of the bill’s fiscal and personnel impact to the state. Fiscal note estimates are prepared for the introduced version of the bill only. Fiscal notes are not updated based on amendments adopted on the bill. Fiscal notes are made available publicly before committee/floor action on a bill. If a bill is introduced after the start of session, the fiscal note may read that the ‘fiscal or personnel impact is not determinable due to insufficient time to complete the fiscal note process.’” Bill/vote tracking – Is there a resource available for the public to track legislative action on bills and committee/floor roll calls? Wyoming LSO: “Yes, all legislative action on bills and committee/floor roll call votes are available on www.wyoleg.gov for current and past sessions from 2001 to present.” Public hearings – Is there a process for the public to receive notification of public hearing agendas? Are there any time requirements for public hearing agendas to be posted before committee action on a bill (5-day notice, etc.)? Wyoming LSO: “Yes, all meeting notices and agendas are posted to www.wyoleg.gov and members of the public can receive email notifications through the Legislature’s GovDelivery email subscription service. Go to this link and select which topics you wish to track. During session, meeting notices for committee hearings are posted by 3:00 pm the afternoon before the next legislative day.” Waiting periods for actions on bills/amendments – Are there any waiting period requirements before action can be taken on bill text or amendments (3-day publicly available first, etc.)? Wyoming LSO: “Wyoming legislative rules provide for at least one day between each reading. Each bill gets three readings in both chambers. The bodies can overrule the one-day rule by a 2/3 vote to accelerate a bill through the process. (See House, Senate, and Joint Rules)” Budget votes – Are there any waiting period requirements after a budget has been introduced before legislative action can be taken on the proposal? Wyoming LSO: “There is a mandatory one-day break between second and third reading on the budget bill. Proposed amendments to the budget bill must be finalized no later than 5:00 pm on the legislative working day preceding the day of the reading. Proposed budget amendments are posted on www.wyoleg.gov as soon as they have been finalized by the sponsor. Read more about Wyoming’s budget process here.” Remote testimony – Is remote testimony available for all public hearings? If yes, what are the requirements (sign-in 24hrs before hearing, etc.)? Wyoming LSO: “Remote testimony for the public is generally available at all legislative meetings during the interim. It’s important to note that remote testimony is required by policy for meetings that are held at approved facilities that can accommodate the technology needs for remote testimony. Chairmen maintain discretion to limit the time allowed for public comment and the total number of requests approved per agenda topic as well as where a meeting is held. Participants must register by 5:00 pm the day before the meeting. (See Management Council Policy 21-01) Remote testimony for the public is generally available at all meetings during session. Chairmen maintain discretion to limit the time allowed for public comment and whether or not to take remote testimony. The 5:00 pm deadline does not apply to standing committee meetings during session, and participants can register up until when the meeting starts. (See Management Council Policy 09-01)” Video live stream/archives – Are committee hearings and floor action live-streamed and archived? If yes, where are these broadcasts available? Wyoming LSO: “All interim committee meetings, standing committees, and floor sessions from 2020 to current are live broadcast and archived on the Wyoming Legislature’s YouTube channel. Audio archive from 2007 to 2020 floor sessions can be found here.” Bill signing process – How long does the governor have to act on a bill after it is approved by the legislature? Is there a pocket-veto or do approved bills automatically become law after a certain amount of time if the governor doesn’t act? Wyoming LSO: “Pursuant to Article 4, Section 8 of the Wyoming Constitution, the Governor can sign, veto, or allow a bill to become law without his/her signature. While the Legislature is in session, the Governor has three (3) days (excluding Sundays) to take action on a bill. After the legislative session has adjourned, the Governor has fifteen (15) days to take action on a bill.” Veto authority – What type of veto authority exists for the governor (line item, etc.)? Wyoming LSO: “Pursuant to Article 4, Section 8 and 9 of the Wyoming Constitution, the Governor can veto a bill in its entirety or allow it to become law without his/her signature. The Governor only has line-item veto authority on bills that contain multiple appropriations (e.g. the budget bill).” Veto override process – What is the veto override process for the legislature? Wyoming LSO: “Pursuant to Article 4, Section 8 of the Wyoming Constitution, the Legislature can override a gubernatorial veto by a 2/3 vote by both chambers. The bill initially goes back to the chamber of origin for consideration and if 2/3 of the members vote to override, the bill then moves to the second chamber for a 2/3 vote.” Right of referendum/initiative – Do citizens have the right of referendum and initiative? If yes, what are the requirements (are there any restrictions)? Wyoming LSO: “Yes, Wyoming citizens have a right to referendum, and it’s governed by Article 3, Section 52 of the Wyoming Constitution and Wyoming Statutes 22-24-401 through 22-24-420. Applications are submitted to the Wyoming Secretary of State’s office and there’s a fee of $500. Restrictions - Referendums cannot be applied to dedications of revenues, to appropriations, to local or special legislation, or to laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health and safety. Requirements - Petitioners must obtain signatures equal to at least 15% of qualified voters who voted in the preceding general election in at least 2/3 of Wyoming’s 23 counties. Read more about Wyoming’s referendum process here.” Thank you to the Wyoming Legislative Service Office for answering our questions.

How do the legislatures in the Mountain States work? To answer this question, we checked with legislative officials in Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming. MSPC sent the same questions about the legislative process to each state. The director of Montana’s Legislative Services Division (LSD) helped with our initial inquiry before retiring. The questions we posed are in italics and the answers are pulled from resources provided by the LSD. Length of legislative session/special sessions – When do regular legislative sessions begin and how long are they scheduled for? How is a special session called and how long can that session run? Montana LSD: Article V, Section 6 of the state constitution states: “The legislature shall meet each odd-numbered year in regular session of not more than 90 legislative days. Any legislature may increase the limit on the length of any subsequent session. The legislature may be convened in special sessions by the governor or at the written request of a majority of the members.” Montana Code 5-2-103 specifies: ‘Each regular session of the legislature shall be convened at the seat of government at 12 noon on the first Monday of January of each odd-numbered year or, if January 1 is a Monday, on the first Wednesday. The legislature shall meet at other times when convened by the governor or by the written request of a majority of the legislators or, when the legislature is in session, by a recorded vote of a majority of the legislators.’” Bill introduction process/restrictions – What is the bill introduction process and are there any restrictions on when or how many bills can be introduced? Montana LSD: Lawmakers can introduce an unlimited number of bills until 5 p.m. on December 5 before the session starts. After 5:01 p.m. on December 5, lawmakers can only introduce seven new bills. Only two of the seven bill requests may be submitted after noon on January 2 when the session officially starts. General bills can be introduced through the 40th day of the session, fiscal bills and referenda through the 62nd day of the session, and study resolutions through the 79th day of the session (90-day session). Under the legislative rules, “after a member has requested the drafting of five bills, the sixth bill request and all subsequent bill requests of that member must receive a lower drafting priority than all other bills of members not in excess of five per member.” Bill reports/fiscal notes – Are bill reports and fiscal notes made available publicly before committee/floor action on a bill? Montana LSD: Bill reports and fiscal notes are available here. Legislative rules say: “If a bill requires a fiscal note, the bill may not be reported from a committee for second reading unless the bill is accompanied by the fiscal note.” Bill/vote tracking – Is there a resource available for the public to track legislative action on bills and committee/floor roll calls? Montana LSD: Bill status and roll calls are available here. Public hearings – Is there a process for the public to receive notification of public hearing agendas? Are there any time requirements for public hearing agendas to be posted before committee action on a bill (5-day notice, etc.)? Montana LSD: Under legislative rules: “Notice of a committee hearing must be made by posting the date, time, and subject of the hearing online and in a conspicuous public place not less than 3 legislative days in advance of the hearing.” There are several exemptions to the 3-day notice requirement, however. Waiting periods for actions on bills/amendments – Are there any waiting period requirements before action can be taken on bill text or amendments (3-day publicly available first, etc.)? Montana LSD: Under legislative rules: “Every bill must be read three times prior to passage, either by title or by summary of title as provided in these rules. A bill or resolution may not have more than one reading on the same day except the last legislative day. An amendment may not be offered on third reading . . . Until the 50th legislative day, 1 day must elapse between receiving the legislation from printing and scheduling for second reading for consideration by Committee of the Whole unless a posted or printed version of an unamended bill is available.” This rule, however, is often waived to allow bills to have a second and third reading on the same day, especially near the transmittal deadline and end of the session. Budget votes – Are there any waiting period requirements after a budget has been introduced before legislative action can be taken on the proposal? Montana LSD: Under legislative rules: “All appropriation bills must originate in the House of Representatives.” See rules for readings of bills above. Remote testimony – Is remote testimony available for all public hearings? If yes, what are the requirements (sign-in 24hrs before hearing, etc.)? Montana LSD: Here are the details for remote testimony: “You will be able to select from the bills that are currently scheduled for hearing for the next 4 days. By 5PM the day before the hearing, you will be able to submit your written testimony, write a brief message, or request a Zoom link to testify in the bill hearing. Fill out the form with the pertinent details and submit. You will receive an email confirmation. You do not have to testify in order to submit written comments. Written comments received by the deadline will be distributed to all committee members. However, if you request a Zoom link, we request that you write a brief message in the event of technical difficulties so that your name will be entered into the record.​ Rules of decorum must be followed and the Presiding Officer will call on you when it is your turn to speak. Follow the Zoom directions and raise your hand to let the Remote Committee Coordinator know when you want to speak. We will not assume that because you requested the Zoom link that you automatically want to testify. There may be limits placed on how many people are allowed to testify remotely on each bill.” Note: Public Testimony for Conference Committees is in person only. Video live stream/archives – Are committee hearings and floor action live-streamed and archived? If yes, where are these broadcasts available? Montana LSD: Live videos and archives of legislative proceedings are available here. Bill signing process – How long does the governor have to act on a bill after it is approved by the legislature? Is there a pocket-veto or do approved bills automatically become law after a certain amount of time if the governor doesn’t act? Montana LSD: Article VI, Section 10 of the state constitution specifies that the governor has 10 days to either sign or veto a bill after it is delivered. If no action is taken after 10 days the bill automatically becomes law. Veto authority – What type of veto authority exists for the governor (line item, etc.)? Montana LSD: According to Article VI, Section of the state constitution: “The governor may veto items in appropriation bills, and in such instances the procedure shall be the same as upon veto of an entire bill.” Veto override process– What is the veto override process for the legislature? Montana LSD: According to Article VI, Section of the state constitution: “The governor may return any bill to the legislature with his recommendation for amendment. If the legislature passes the bill in accordance with the governor's recommendation, it shall again return the bill to the governor for his reconsideration. The governor shall not return a bill for amendment a second time. If after receipt of a veto message, two-thirds of the members of each house present approve the bill, it shall become law. If the legislature is not in session when the governor vetoes a bill approved by two-thirds of the members present, he shall return the bill with his reasons therefor to the secretary of state. The secretary of state shall poll the members of the legislature by mail and shall send each member a copy of the governor's veto message. If two-thirds or more of the members of each house vote to override the veto, the bill shall become law. The legislature may reconvene as provided by law to reconsider any bill vetoed by the governor when the legislature is not in session.” Right of referendum/initiative – Do citizens have the right of referendum and initiative? If yes, what are the requirements (are there any restrictions)? Montana LSD: Article 3, Section 4 of the state constitution authorizes initiatives: “The people may enact laws by initiative on all matters except appropriations of money and local or special laws. Initiative petitions must contain the full text of the proposed measure, shall be signed by at least five percent of the qualified electors in each of at least one-third of the legislative representative districts and the total number of signers must be at least five percent of the total qualified electors of the state. Petitions shall be filed with the secretary of state at least three months prior to the election at which the measure will be voted upon. The sufficiency of the initiative petition shall not be questioned after the election is held.” As for referendums, Article 3, Section 5 says: “The people may approve or reject by referendum any act of the legislature except an appropriation of money. A referendum shall be held either upon order by the legislature or upon petition signed by at least five percent of the qualified electors in each of at least one-third of the legislative representative districts. The total number of signers must be at least five percent of the qualified electors of the state. A referendum petition shall be filed with the secretary of state no later than six months after adjournment of the legislature which passed the act. An act referred to the people is in effect until suspended by petitions signed by at least 15 percent of the qualified electors in a majority of the legislative representative districts. If so suspended the act shall become operative only after it is approved at an election, the result of which has been determined and declared as provided by law.” Montana Code Title 13, Chapter 27 details the process for ballot measures. Thank you to Montana’s Legislative Services Division for its assistance. Additional Information Lawmaking in Idaho – How the Gem State’s Legislative Process Works Understanding the Wyoming legislative process An overview of the legislative process in Washington state

How do the legislatures in the Mountain States work? To answer this question, we checked with legislative officials in Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming. MSPC sent the same questions about the legislative process to each state. Here is the response we received from the Washington Legislative Information Center (LIC). The questions we posed are in italics. Length of legislative session/special sessions – When do regular legislative sessions begin and how long are they scheduled for? How is a special session called and how long can that session run? Washington LIC: “Session starts the second Monday in January. Long sessions (odd numbered years) are 105 days long, short sessions (even numbered years) are 60 days. Special sessions can be called by the Governor, or the legislature can vote (2/3 majority in both chambers) to bring themselves into special session. Special sessions can last up to 30 days.” Bill introduction process/restrictions – What is the bill introduction process and are there any restrictions on when or how many bills can be introduced? Washington LIC: “Pre-filing begins the first Monday in December. Bills can be pre-filed until noon the Friday before the session starts and they are all introduced on the first day of session. Bills can continue to be introduced throughout session, though the cutoff calendar indicates what types of bills can no longer be heard after certain dates.” Note: Bills introduced during the last 10 days of the session require a 2/3 vote to be considered under the state constitution. Bill reports/fiscal notes – Are bill reports and fiscal notes made available publicly before committee/floor action on a bill? Washington LIC: “If bill reports and fiscal notes exist, they are posted on our public website *usually* days before a hearing.” Bill/vote tracking – Is there a resource available for the public to track legislative action on bills and committee/floor roll calls? Washington LIC: “We have a bill tracking feature on our website, here: https://app.leg.wa.gov/bi. The public can also look up roll votes from the same page.” Public hearings – Is there a process for the public to receive notification of public hearing agendas? Are there any time requirements for public hearing agendas to be posted before committee action on a bill (5-day notice, etc.)? Washington LIC: “We have a 5 day rule for the agendas to be posted, the public can also sign up for notification via GovDelivery.” Waiting periods for actions on bills/amendments – Are there any waiting period requirements before action can be taken on bill text or amendments (3-day publicly available first, etc.)? Washington LIC: “I have not heard of a waiting period.” Budget votes – Are there any waiting period requirements after a budget has been introduced before legislative action can be taken on the proposal? Washington LIC: “I have not heard of a waiting period.” Remote testimony – Is remote testimony available for all public hearings? If yes, what are the requirements (sign-in 24hrs before hearing, etc.)? Washington LIC: “Remote testimony is available; the public has from the time the bill is scheduled until 1 hour before the committee hearing starts to sign up to testify or get their position noted on a bill. They have 24 hours after the hearing begins to submit written testimony on a bill.” Video live stream/archives – Are committee hearings and floor action live-streamed and archived? If yes, where are these broadcasts available? Washington LIC: “The hearings are broadcast live, archived by TVW, and often linked on the bill’s information page.” Bill signing process – How long does the governor have to act on a bill after it is approved by the legislature? Is there a pocket-veto or do approved bills automatically become law after a certain amount of time if the governor doesn’t act? Washington LIC: “No pocket veto. The Governor generally has 5 days to take action on a bill, Sundays excluded. For bills delivered to the Governor’s desk on the last 5 days of session, the Governor has 20 days (excluding Sundays) to take action on the bill. If the Governor does not sign a bill, it goes into effect without his signature, only a veto stops the bill.” Veto authority – What type of veto authority exists for the governor (line item, etc.)? Washington LIC: “The Governor can veto whole bills or whole sections of bills, the Governor has line-item veto power only on budgets.” Veto override process – What is the veto override process for the legislature? Washington LIC: “The legislature takes a vote to override the veto.” Right of referendum/initiative – Do citizens have the right of referendum and initiative? If yes, what are the requirements (are there any restrictions)? Washington LIC: “Yes, the Secretary of State’s election office can speak to the requirements and process. The only exception that I am aware of is for emergency clause bills.” Additional details about Washington’s legislative process are available in the Legislative Manual. Thank you to the Washington Legislative Information Center for answering our questions. Additional Information Understanding the Wyoming legislative process

How do the legislatures in the Mountain States work? To answer this question, we checked with legislative officials in Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming. MSPC sent the same questions about the legislative process to each state. Here is the response we received from the Idaho Legislative Services Office (LSO). The questions we posed are in italics. Length of legislative session/special sessions – When do regular legislative sessions begin and how long are they scheduled for? How is a special session called and how long can that session run? Idaho LSO: “According to Section 8, Article III of the Constitution of the State of Idaho, regular sessions are held annually at the capital on the second Monday of January of each year, unless a different day shall have been appointed by law. According to Section 67-404, Idaho Code, ‘At the hour of twelve o’clock M. on the Monday on or nearest the ninth day in January the regular session of the legislature shall be convened.’ Legislative sessions are not scheduled for a specific amount of time, rather until business is finished. The governor may convene the legislature in an extraordinary session by proclamation, and the legislature may only act on the subject in the proclamation, according to Section 9, Article IV of the Constitution of the State of Idaho. According to Section 8, Article III of the Constitution of the State of Idaho, the legislature may also be convened in a special session by the president pro tempore of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives upon receipt of a joint written petition of at least sixty percent of the membership of each house, specifying the subjects to be considered. Such special session must commence no later than fifteen days after the petition is received by the president pro tempore of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives and may only act on the subject in the petition. According to Section 23, Article III of the Constitution of the State of Idaho, extra sessions convened by the governor shall not exceed a period longer than 20 days.” Bill introduction process/restrictions – What is the bill introduction process and are there any restrictions on when or how many bills can be introduced? Idaho LSO: The following information is directly from the legislative resources online and a more detailed description can be found here. ‘A bill may be introduced by a member, a group of members or a standing committee. After the 20th day of the session in the House and the 12th day in the Senate, bills may be introduced only by committee. After the 36th day, bills may be introduced only by certain committees. In the House: State Affairs, Appropriations, Education, Revenue and Taxation, Health and Welfare and Ways and Means Committee. In the Senate: State Affairs, Finance, and Judiciary and Rules.’ ‘When the RS (proposed legislation) is approved after a short committee hearing, it is presented to the Chief Clerk of the House or Secretary of the Senate and assigned a bill number. The bill is then introduced (First Reading) by being read on the floor in the 8th Order of Business in the House and the 11th Order of Business in the Senate. When a bill has been passed by one house it is transmitted to the other and follows the same process as any new bill. It will be introduced (First Reading), referred to a committee for review and recommendation and then, if sent to the floor, will flow through the calendars (Second Reading, and Third Reading) until reaching a final vote at the Third Reading Calendar.’ There are no restrictions on how many bills are introduced." Bill reports/fiscal notes – Are bill reports and fiscal notes made available publicly before committee/floor action on a bill? Idaho LSO: “Yes, they can be found at the bill center on the website. For example, the 2023 session can be found here.” Bill/vote tracking – Is there a resource available for the public to track legislative action on bills and committee/floor roll calls? Idaho LSO: “Yes, our online bill center includes this information. For example, the 2023 session can be found here.” Within the bill center, there are five different viewing options, Legislation by Bill Number (Mini Data), Legislation by Subject/Topic, Enacted Legislation, Vetoed Legislation, Final Bill Status. Each bill view, except the final weekly bill status report, is linked to the bill information including the bill text, statement of purpose/fiscal note, the committee where it was introduced, actions taken listed by date, vote results, and final action. All introduced bills are listed in the Legislation by Bill Number and Legislation by Subject/Topic. Each committee’s information is also on the website and the public can see the agendas and minutes for each meeting in each committee. The public can also subscribe to individual committees to follow committee action at this site.” Public hearings – Is there a process for the public to receive notification of public hearing agendas? Are there any time requirements for public hearing agendas to be posted before committee action on a bill (5-day notice, etc.)? Idaho LSO: “The legislature provides online resources for the public to subscribe to individual committee updates, follow bills through the tracking system, and stream and download committee meeting and floor proceedings. While State of Idaho open meeting laws do not apply to the Legislature, both chambers strive to meet those standards (agendas posted 24-48 hours prior to meetings) whenever possible.” Waiting periods for actions on bills/amendments – Are there any waiting period requirements before action can be taken on bill text or amendments (3-day publicly available first, etc.)? Idaho LSO: “According to Senate Rule 10 and House Rule 11, in order for a bill to be voted on, there must be three readings on separate days before it is voted on in one house and must be read again three times on separate days in the other house prior to the vote. This provision can be dispensed with by a two-thirds vote in the House, and in the case of urgency in the Senate by suspending the rule with a two-thirds vote. Bills in the Senate can only be amended on the floor in the 14th order and the amendment must be submitted the prior day.” Budget votes – Are there any waiting period requirements after a budget has been introduced before legislative action can be taken on the proposal? Idaho LSO: “The Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee calendar is crafted so that agency budget hearings occur during the first approximately six weeks of the legislative session. Following all budget hearings, budget setting takes place based on individual motions made in committee. The successful motions are then used to draft appropriation bills which are voted on by each house through the bill voting process. As with other bills and following Senate and House Rules, appropriation bills to be voted on must have three readings on separate days before it is voted on in one house and must be read again three times on separate days in the other house prior to the vote. This provision can be dispensed with by a two-thirds vote in the House, and in the case of urgency in the Senate by suspending the rule with a two-thirds vote.” Remote testimony – Is remote testimony available for all public hearings? If yes, what are the requirements (sign-in 24hrs before hearing, etc.)? Idaho LSO: “Yes, remote testimony is available, but is at the discretion of the committee chair. Guidelines on registration, protocols, and more information can be found on all committee pages and here.” Video live stream/archives – Are committee hearings and floor action live-streamed and archived? If yes, where are these broadcasts available? Idaho LSO: “Yes, all committee hearings and floor action are available for live stream here. Senate Committee information can be found here. House Committee information can be found here. Archived videos can be found here. Each committee website and downloadable agendas have the specific links listed for the public to access live streams. Each committee site also has archived agendas, minutes, and video streams available to download. Most video downloads are available by the end of the day the meeting occurred. Archived committee meetings and floor proceedings are available from 2013 to present.” Bill signing process – How long does the governor have to act on a bill after it is approved by the legislature? Is there a pocket-veto or do approved bills automatically become law after a certain amount of time if the governor doesn’t act? Idaho LSO: “According to Section 10, Article IV of the Constitution of the State of Idaho, all bills passed by the legislature shall be presented to the governor. The governor will sign approved bills and the signed bills shall become law. If the governor does not approve (a veto), it will be returned to the originating house, with the objections. The originating house may reconsider the bill, and the motion must pass with two-thirds in favor. If the veto is overridden in the originating house, then the bill with the objections will be sent to the other house and must also pass with two-thirds in favor to become law. According to Section 10, Article IV of the Constitution of the State of Idaho, bills not returned by the governor within five days (excluding Sundays) shall become law as if the governor signed it. If the legislature adjourns, then the governor shall file the bill with his objections to the secretary of state within ten days after adjournment or it becomes law.” Veto authority – What type of veto authority exists for the governor (line item, etc.)? Idaho LSO: “According to Section 10, Article IV of the Constitution of the State of Idaho, a bill vetoed by the governor shall be returned to the house where it originated with the objections. According to Section 11, Article IV of the Constitution of the State of Idaho, the governor has the power to disapprove of any item or items (line item veto) of a bill making appropriations of money, and the parts approved will become law and those unapproved will become void. Objected items can be separately reconsidered in a similar manner as vetoed bills. Objections to line items in an appropriation bill may only pertain to dollar amounts and must strike (zero out) the entire dollar amount in question. Reduction of dollar amounts or striking of language is not allowed.” Veto override process – What is the veto override process for the legislature? Idaho LSO: “To reconsider a bill that was vetoed by the governor, a two-thirds vote in favor is required by the originating body, and if passed it is sent to the other body and a two-thirds vote in favor is required to become law, according to Section 10, Article IV of the Constitution of the State of Idaho.” Right of referendum/initiative – Do citizens have the right of referendum and initiative? If yes, what are the requirements (are there any restrictions)? Idaho LSO: “Yes, citizens have the right of referendum and initiative according to Section 1, Article III of the Constitution of the State of Idaho. Section 34-1801 through Section 34-1823, Idaho Code, explain the rules and process for referendum and initiative. To be on the state ballot, six percent of eligible voters from each county must sign the petition. The process to acquire and file signatures is detailed in Section 34-1801 through Section 34-1823, Idaho Code. A majority vote in favor of the referendum or initiative by the population will result in it becoming law by the designated date or July of the following year.” Thank you to the Idaho Legislative Services Office for answering our questions. Additional Information Understanding the Wyoming legislative process An overview of the legislative process in Washington state

In preparation for the start of the 2024 Legislative Session on January 8, members of the Idaho Economic Outlook and Revenue Assessment Committee are hearing presentations to help shape the revenue framework for budget discussions. This is the role of the committee: “(1) make an overall assessment of Idaho’s economy by providing a forum for expert testimony from economists, business leaders, and industry spokesmen regarding the status of Idaho’s current economy and the economic outlook for the next eighteen months; and (2) review the Governor’s fiscal years 2023 and 2024 General Fund revenue projections and provide advice to the Legislature regarding the total estimated revenues expected to be available for appropriation.” Here are some of the notable details provided during today’s meeting: Revenue Outlook: “Overall, revenues appear to be leveling out. Withholdings remain strong. Net sales taxes mostly match last year. Still looking for headwinds on economic stability in a unique economy.” State population: “Idaho has been the fastest-growing state since 2010. 90% of population growth since April 2020 has come from migration. We forecast state population will exceed two million in winter 2024. Migration explains 2/3 of predicted revenue growth through FY 2028.” Labor market: “Idaho’s economic strength continues to lead the nation. The state leads the nation in the percentage increase of jobs above the pre-pandemic peak. The largest job increases in the next two years are expected to continue to be in health care and construction sectors. Total covered wages have increased by $4.7 billion from Q2 2022 to Q2 2023 and are expected to increase by $6.3 by Q2 2025. Labor force supply limitations have eased but remain a challenge.” National outlook: “Headwinds: Labor Pressure, High Prices, International Uncertainty, and Increasing Energy Prices.” “Tailwinds: Labor Market Strength, Consumer Spending, Government Stimulus, and Strong Mountain West Region.” The Idaho Economic Outlook and Revenue Assessment Committee will use the information from these presentations to adopt its formal revenue recommendation on January 11. This revenue projection will then be used to frame the budget debate for the session. The 2024 Legislative Session starts on January 8 and is currently targeted to end on March 22. Additional Information MSPC’s top recommendations for Idaho’s 2024 Legislative Session