Officials in Washington state are receiving a same-day delivery of bad news from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos on the problems with narrowly targeting graduated tax policy. Bezos recently announced that he is moving from Washington state (with its new capital gains income tax and highest in the nation estate/death tax) to fully income and estate tax-free Florida. Although Bezos said the desire to be closer to family drove the cross-country move, the tax impacts of the move show you can “Work Hard. Have Fun. Make History” while also lowering your tax burden. The Tax Foundation notes: "Jeff Bezos announced a move to Miami, and somewhere, a Washington state revenue official was probably moved to tears. Bezos sold about $15.7 billion worth of Amazon stock between 2020 and 2021, according to news reports. If we assume that Bezos—who, other than the symbolic purchase of one share last year, has not purchased any shares of Amazon in decades—had held onto these shares since the IPO, he saved nearly $1.1 billion in taxes by selling those shares before the new state capital gains tax went into effect. Whether or not it was a motivating factor, relocating to Florida ensures that future sales won’t be subject to Washington’s new capital gains tax, either. Meanwhile, Washington officials have spent recent years bandying about wealth tax proposals. Wealth taxes are uniquely economically damaging—but for those targeted by them at the state level, they can also be fairly easy to avoid . . . Again, even though the official estimate tried to account for some outmigration, presumably including some of the state’s wealthiest taxpayers, this is worth repeating: his decision to move to Florida just eliminated potential wealth tax collections worth nearly half the official estimate. When a tax is so heavily concentrated on a few wealthy, highly mobile individuals, that’s what happens when just one person moves. And if the tax were ever adopted, others might follow. While Bezos may not be thinking about this yet, by moving to Florida, he also shields his heirs from Washington’s highest-in-the-nation estate tax, with a top rate of 20 percent.” The hometown Washington Policy Center wrote: “What does this all mean for Washington State? Taxes have consequences. For every Jeff Bezos or Fisher Investments that makes headlines for moving, there are many more who quietly leave the state. Washington’s competitive advantage for decades was its lack of an income tax. People and businesses will continue to leave for more tax-friendly states. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Washington shouldn’t build its financial future on risky and volatile taxes like the Washington capital gains excise tax. This move highlights an inherent flaw in taxes that target individuals and businesses.” The lesson for policymakers is that there’s more to tax policy, a truckload more. This includes a potentially big hole in revenue collections by relying on targeted and highly graduated tax sources instead of the tried-and-true policy of low rates and broad bases of a sound tax structure.

Who should decide how public land is developed in Idaho – local elected officials or unelected bureaucrats in Washington D.C.? A new congressional bill introduced by Idaho Senator Jim Risch would place that decision back in the hands of Idaho policymakers, giving residents a means of blocking out-of-state interests. New York investment company, LS Energy is concerned about the habitat of native species but not the homes and history of Idaho communities. Seeking to invest in wind energy projects, LS Energy created Magic Valley Energy to manage the currently proposed Lava Ridge Wind Project. LS Energy says it would benefit the local community, but the local community disagrees. LS Energy considered many locations but wanted to avoid damaging undisturbed habitats to protect native species in other regions. LS Energy decided that due to fire damage and existing habitat disruption in the Magic Valley, the site 20 miles north of Twin Falls would be a good location for a 400-tower wind farm over 197,474 acres of federally, state, and privately owned land. One of the largest in the country. These 400 wind towers would truly tower over the landscape, with heights rivaling the size of the Seattle Space Needle. The project is expected to power 300,000 homes and provide significant tax revenues. However, most of this power is expected to be exported to other states. The proposal was submitted to the Bureau of Land Management in 2020, and the local citizens are strongly opposed. At the close of the public comment in April 2023 11,000 submissions were registered by the BLM, and Magic Valley residents are united against the project citing disregard for local historical sites, economic concerns, environmental impacts, and the low aesthetic appeal of looking at over 197,000 acres of windmills. But these voices of local impacted citizens could go unnoticed because the final decision rests with the Bureau of Land Management federal employees. Unelected officials, not accountable to the voice of local Idaho residents, will decide what version (if any) of the Lava Ridge Wind Project is approved. Current Biden Administration preferences for renewable energy projects is likely to favor wind and solar plans, like Lava Ridge, over the voices of impacted communities and citizens. As out-of-state investors and federal land managers push for cumbersome energy projects and ignore the objections of residents, proposed legislation by Idaho Senator Jim Risch would stop this disregard. U.S. Sens. Jim Risch and Mike Crapo and Reps. Mike Simpson and Russ Fulcher supported, “Don’t Develop Obstructive Infrastructure on our Terrain Act.” The proposed ‘Don’t Do It’ legislation if enacted gives a voice and the means for states to block unwanted energy projects. Favoring local communities and state voices over federal initiatives is a win for citizens. The Don’t Do It bill would empower state legislatures with the ability to deny proposed energy projects on public lands. Idaho’s Governor Brad Little voiced on X, “Idahoans have been loud and clear on Lava Ridge: Don’t DO IT! States need to be at the table driving new energy resources, and this legislation will make the federal government more responsive to states’ voices in future energy development.” Instead of leaving the final approval of energy projects up to bureaucrats and out-of-state investors, states should be empowered with the ability to decide how they want their communities to look and how they will meet their own energy goals. Local citizens need a way for their voices to not only be submitted for comment but to be considered by elected officials that have to answer to them, not by bureaucrats in their offices in DC, waiting for the next administration change to dictate a priority shift. The Don’t Do It legislation would give local communities a say in what happens in their habitat, a step forward for good government.

Consistent with the requirements in its bylaws, the Board of Directors of the nation’s fastest-growing free market think tank has elected new leadership. Julie Shiflett of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, has been selected by her colleagues to serve as Chair of Mountain States Policy Center for a two-year term beginning on January 1, 2024. John S. Otter of Boise has been elected Vice Chair for the same term. “I am humbled to be able to lead our great board and advance the mission of MSPC, putting Free Markets First and facts at the center of our public policy debates,” Shiflett said. Ken Dey of Boise served as MSPC’s first-ever Chairman. His term expires on December 31st. “It has been the honor of a lifetime to help start and lead the board of a new free market think tank,” Dey said. “I know MSPC is well- positioned for success for many years to come.” MSPC’s new leadership team for the 2024-2025 term includes: Julie Shiflett, Chair John S. Otter, Vice Chair William Junkermier, Treasurer Brittany Gautreau, Secretary Chris Cargill, President Twelve other leaders from across the Mountain States serve on the MSPC Board of Directors. Members serve a staggered four-year term on the board, while leadership is elected every two years. A complete list of board members is available at mountainstatespolicy.org. Current board members Dey, Rebecca Funk and Oscar Evans will transition off the board December 31st. New board members will be elected by the Board of Directors this winter. Mountain States Policy Center is a non-profit, non-partisan research center that provides free market solutions to successfully grow the region. It concentrates its work in Idaho, Eastern Washington, Montana and Wyoming – one of the first organizations of its kind to cover multiple states. MSPC’s mission is to empower those in the Mountain States to succeed through non-partisan, quality research that promotes free enterprise, individual liberty and limited government.

It’s that time of year when trick-or-treaters of all ages brave the cold and elements. While candy is usually sufficient to appease the mild mischief of cuter Halloween-goers, something stronger may be needed to help ward off the ill-intent of scary tricksters. Here are a few policy suggestions to counter these types of ghouls: Michael “Property Tax Increase” Myers – The best way to slash through the mystery behind a proposed property tax increase is with Truth in Taxation. Chucky the “One Educational Model Fits None” Doll – Evil dolls come in all shapes and sizes. A menu of options is needed to learn how to defeat them. Education choices will help parents navigate the dangers. Pennywise “But Not for Your Taxes” – A shiny red tax balloon may be tempting but it can quickly pop a state’s tax climate. Supermajority for tax increase requirements will help keep your state from floating toward chaotic tax changes. Scarecrow the “Anti-Farm Regulator” – The quickest way to kill the profitability of a crop is to overregulate it. Use these Top 10 free-market agriculture policy ideas to restore the harvest. Headless Horseman the “Mindless Citizen” – You’ve already lost the policy debate if you lose your head. Use this checklist for analyzing policy to keep a clear mind and more importantly your head on your shoulders. Should these scary tricksters come to your door this Halloween, these policy treats will be more effective than full-sized candy bars (and cheaper too). Happy Halloween!

When the federal government decided to get even more involved in health care, numerous promises were made about the price you would pay and the number of people who would be covered. There was the promise that "if you like your plan you can keep your plan." Politifact later labeled it the "lie of the year." Turns out, millions of Americans lost their plan. And remember when former President Obama said that premiums would be lowered by up to $2,500 per family, per year? That hasn't happened either. In fact, this year, a new survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation finds premiums for employer health plans are up 7% to nearly $24,000. There will no-doubt be additional calls for more government interference in the health care market. This will lead to higher costs and worse coverage. How do we know? We're living through yet another case study.

Idaho voters could soon decide whether to overhaul the state’s primary process and adopt ranked choice voting. But even if the measure makes the ballot and is approved by voters, it may not last long. That’s because, regardless of your opinion of the proposed election ballot measure, the fact remains there are serious constitutional concerns. The measure likely violates the state’s single subject rule. Article 3, Section 16 of the Idaho State Constitution makes it clear that “every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith.” Several years ago, lawmakers amended state law to require ballot initiatives only address a single subject. The reasoning here is simple: to ensure that it is easy to interpret voter intent. If a measure has multiple subjects, it is difficult to know what voters may have been approving or rejecting. There is currently no standing to review the open primaries/ranked choice voting measure because it has not yet qualified. If it does, the Idaho Supreme Court will likely be asked to review. A single subject rule is not unusual. Of the states that allow for a citizen-initiated ballot measure, more than half have single-subject rules. Montana’s Supreme Court recently cited single subject requirements to strike down an initiative that would have capped yearly property tax increases but would have also capped the taxable value. South Dakota’s Supreme Court did the same, ruling a voter-approved initiative legalizing marijuana was unconstitutional because recreational marijuana, medical marijuana and hemp were three different subjects. Single subject rules also exist to clarify actions of legislatures. In fact, 43 state constitutions contain single subject requirements for legislation. Mississippi and Arkansas apply the requirement to just spending bills. One place you won’t find single subject requirements is the United States Constitution and the U.S. Congress. As a result, mega omnibus bills often called “Christmas trees” are commonplace – a frustration for many Americans and an affront to the notion of transparent government. Supporters of the election ballot initiative say it will give Idahoans “more freedom and better leadership.” Whether that is true is ultimately up to voters to decide. But with two distinct subjects, it will be more difficult to try to determine and implement their real intent. As it currently stands, are voters supporting open primaries or ranked choice voting with the ballot measure? They are two very different things. By linking the subjects together, voters are being denied the opportunity to support one or the other - something single subject restrictions are designed to prevent.

If there’s one thing Americans can still agree on it’s that tax policy is one of the most consequential decisions our government makes that impacts our economy and family budgets. With the exception of Washington state, policymakers in the Mountain States (Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming) have been very active the last few years prioritizing tax relief for citizens while making fiscally conservative budget investments. While this ongoing tax relief effort is to be commended, more can be done to help provide taxpayers the peace of mind that tax increases will always be the last resort when budgeting. One way to do this is by adding requirements to a state’s constitution that require a supermajority vote or voter approval to raise taxes. Now you may say that the current makeup of the legislatures in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are already sufficient to avoid tax increases. While that may be true today, it may not be tomorrow as experienced by taxpayers in Washington state. Consider the fact Washington voters over the years passed ballot measures requiring a supermajority vote to raise taxes not once, twice, or thrice, but six separate times. Yet today this taxpayer protection does not exist in Washington because it was not added to the state constitution. Instead, Washington taxpayers now face tax increases on an annual basis without this protection. Rather than leave certain taxpayer protections subject to changing political winds, lawmakers in Texas have acted in recent years instead to forward voters constitutional amendments on various tax restrictions. As noted by the Tax Policy Center in a recent blog post: “Texas Proposition 3 would amend the state’s constitution to prohibit legislators from enacting a wealth tax. No one in Texas is proposing a wealth tax. But no one in Texas was proposing an income tax in 2019, and that didn’t stop three-quarters of Texans from amending the constitution that year to keep the income tax permanently out of the Lone Star State.” Although wealth and income tax prohibitions are different policies than supermajority requirements, these efforts demonstrate Texas policymakers acting to provide voters the opportunity to make sure the tax climate in the state remains stable. According to the Washington Policy Center, there are currently 17 states with supermajority for tax increase requirements: “Alabama – State income and property taxes cannot be increased without a constitutional amendment Arizona – requires a two-thirds vote in the legislature Arkansas – requires a three-fourths vote in the legislature California – requires a two-thirds vote in the legislature (includes fee increases) Colorado – Voter approval required for all tax increases Delaware – requires a three-fifths vote in the legislature Florida – requires a two-thirds vote in the legislature Kentucky – requires a three-fifths thirds vote in the legislature Louisiana – requires a two-thirds vote in the legislature Michigan – requires a three-fourths vote in the legislature to raise property taxes Mississippi – requires a three-fifths vote in the legislature Missouri – requires voter approval to raise taxes above a set revenue cap Nevada – requires a two-thirds vote in the legislature (includes fee increases) Oklahoma – requires a three-fourths vote in the legislature Oregon – requires a three-fifths vote in the legislature South Dakota – requires a two-thirds vote in the legislature Wisconsin – requires a two-thirds vote in the legislature” Along with providing constitutional tax increase protections, several states (like Oregon and Colorado) also require automatic tax rebates when revenues grow above a certain level. For example: Oregonian: “Oregon taxpayers are set to receive their biggest kicker tax rebate on record when they file their taxes next spring — a $5.6 billion refund, according to near-final forecasts issued Wednesday. That works out to $980 for the median taxpayer.” CPR News: “Colorado is set to pay out more than $3.5 billion in TABOR refunds next spring — one of the largest paybacks that the state has ever had to return to taxpayers. In fact, the state is in the middle of what could be a record-busting string of revenue years. For the first time ever, the state government could be forced to pay refunds for six straight years, stretching from 2022 through 2027 or longer. Those refunds are expected to average more than $2 billion per year — a level never before seen in Colorado, even accounting for inflation.” Proactively acting to protect taxpayers by sending voters a supermajority for tax increases constitutional amendment is a prudent thing for policymakers to do. As occurs in Oregon and Colorado, this type of policy could also be coupled with automatic tax rebate triggers based on revenue growth to help avoid the temptation of overheating a state budget and increasing the pressure for tax increases. Whether requiring voter approval for all tax increases like in Colorado or needing a 2/3 legislative threshold as occurs in Florida, increasing the tax burden imposed on families and businesses should first secure a broad consensus and always be the last resort when budgeting.

The headlines are like a broken record. "Idaho test scores show mixed results," proclaimed the Lewiston Tribune. "Ranking in 48th place, with the third lowest average score, Idaho had an average score of 968, making it another struggling state for students undertaking SAT’s," reported IdaHome Magazine. "ACT college admissions test scores fall to 30-year low" blared NPR. Indeed, throughout the nation, ACT scores did fall. Idaho was a bright spot, however. Across subjects, ACT scores in the Gem State have increased slightly. The other mountain states show either stagnation or declines. It's difficult to find much good news about the direction of K-12 public education. States continue to pour more money into a system that often shows few results. Parents and taxpayers are noticing. In recent polling, only one in four Americans believe K-12 is heading in the right direction. The good news is that there's overwhelming support to change the system. It is across demographics and transcends political parties. New polling conducted by YouGov shows 69% of Americans believe more education choice will improve the nation's education system. Only 10% believe it will weaken outcomes. According to the polling, Americans support ending residential assignments of schools and also support Education Savings Accounts. Education choice can come in all shapes and sizes - ESA's, charter schools, tax credit scholarships, vouchers, and yes, even public schools. Thankfully, Idaho has a robust charter school network and Montana is working toward opening charter schools and has also passed an Education Savings Account for special needs children. Idaho's successful Empowering Parents program also appears to be expanding, to include items such as musical instruments and tutoring. Each state can always do more, and we are hopeful political leaders will be looking at ways to fund students, instead of a one-size-fits-all system. Based on the polling, it's what the public wants. Based on current outcomes, it's what our children need.

Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) is teaming up with tax experts from across the country to ask the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to review the constitutionality of the capital gains tax recently imposed in Washington state. To avoid constitutional restrictions in Washington state, policymakers there called its new capital gains tax an “excise” tax instead of an income tax as it is defined by the rest of the world. Structuring the capital gains tax as an “excise” tax raises U.S. constitutional concerns by attempting to tax transactions from across the country. MSPC is joined in the brief by Americans for Tax Reform, California Policy Center, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Illinois Policy Institute, Independence Institute, National Taxpayers Union Foundation, Manhattan Institute, Oklahoma State Chamber Research Foundation, Opportunity For All Coalition, Reason Foundation, Tax Foundation, and Washington Policy Center. Washington Policy Center has served as the tip of the spear for the last decade trying to warn about the games state policymakers were playing by refusing to acknowledge a capital gains tax is an income tax. This “excise” tax game now sanctioned by the Washington state supreme court has national consequences as explained by the tax experts brief: “Seeking to avoid state constitutional restrictions on income taxes, Washington expressly fashioned the tax as an excise levied on its residents’ sales and exchanges of long-term capital assets (wherever that sale or exchange may occur), not as a tax on the instate income residents receive when they realize capital gains. But state law notwithstanding, the federal implications of allowing an extraterritorial excise tax on out-of-state transactions involving out-of-state property are profound . . . The Washington Supreme Court’s decision threatens to unsettle numerous limitations on the scope of states’ taxing power and thereby prompt other states to follow Washington’s lead, when it suits their own purposes . . . Allowing the decision to stand, thereby leaving open the door to extraterritorial excise taxes, will fray the ties that bind the federal system. Permitting such taxes will encourage further predatory behavior by states seeking to take advantage of their neighbors. It will compromise core values of state autonomy and democracy by permitting states to extract remuneration from transactions taking place entirely in other states and involving solely out-of-state property. And it will distort the incentives of state lawmakers everywhere, tempting them to impose taxes on out-of-state transactions instead of more politically costly taxes on in-state income and transactions. All these consequences will damage the system of interstate economic competition that has served the nation well. States have wide latitude to design their own tax regimes as they see fit as they compete in the interstate economy for business, talent, and prosperity. But they must do so within the territorial parameters the Constitution imposes. Review is urgently needed here to enforce basic principles of federalism and protect the long-standing ground rules for interstate interaction.” Along with the national tax expert brief, another one was filed by a Washington state business coalition led by the Citizen Action Defense Fund (CADF). From the CADF press release: “The state supreme court decided that it is an excise tax. The problem is that states aren’t allowed to tax transactions outside their borders. The bottom line is that because this tax is unconstitutional and negatively effects businesses, the U.S. Supreme Court should grant review and take another look at the state supreme court decision here.” The business coalition brief notes: “Washington’s contrived scheme to avoid the Washington State constitution’s limits on income taxes, by constructing a novel capital gains excise tax, trenches on the rights of other states to obtain their reasonable share of tax revenue—and on the rights of taxpayers not to be taxed multiple times—in contravention of the Constitution.” A decision by SCOTUS on whether to accept the case is expected sometime this winter.

To be fully engaged in our governance, we need to be able to evaluate the level and value of service we receive for the taxes we pay. One of the ways to do this is with budget transparency resources like Transparent Idaho and Washington State Fiscal Information. Spending details, however, are only part of the equation. Meaningful transparency on the amount of taxes we pay and to whom is often the missing component. Consider just how many taxing districts (entities with the authority to impose taxes) there are in each of the Mountain States: Idaho’s Controller’s Office says there are a minimum of 1,261 taxing districts in the state; Montana’s Department of Revenue reports there are nearly 1,400 taxing districts in the state; Washington’s Department of Revenue says there are approximately 1,800 taxing districts in the state; and Wyoming’s Department of Revenue reports there are more than 600 taxing districts in the state. This means the typical home and business in these states could be subject to numerous taxing districts at the same time. The ability to hold the appropriate level of government accountable for that tax burden means knowing how much of the total tax bill they are responsible for and if the cost is worth the level and quality of service provided. Now imagine if you could go to a tax transparency website and enter your home or business address to quickly see all the taxing districts you are subject to, at what rates, and perhaps be provided an educational calculator on your total estimated tax liability based on where you live. One state is already moving in this direction. Lawmakers in Washington State this year adopted a budget proviso “to develop an implementation plan for an online searchable database of all taxes and tax rates in the state for each taxing district.” The Washington State tax transparency website budget proviso is modeled after the requirements from a bipartisan 2023 bill. Here is the intent section from that bill: SB 5158 - Concerning transparency in state and local taxation: “The intent of the legislature is to make state and local tax revenue as open, transparent, and publicly accessible as is feasible. Increasing the ease of public access to state and local tax information significantly contributes to governmental accountability, public participation, and open government; this is particularly true when the information is currently available from disparate government sources, but is difficult for the public to collect and efficiently aggregate.” The idea for a state tax transparency website is a long-standing recommendation from our friends at the Washington Policy Center. Idaho State Controller Brandon Woolf is currently working to add tax data for taxing districts to the Transparent Idaho website. Controller Woolf told me: "Our citizens' taxes represent their financial trust in our governance. They deserve full visibility into every dollar. We are proudly partnering with the multitude of taxing districts across Idaho to make financial data readily accessible to our citizens. Tax transparency is not just a commitment; it's a solemn obligation of a government accountable to its people." U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, once noted, “Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.” Civilization, however, need not be shrouded in the mystery of compounding tax districts without meaningful transparency. We are hopeful that policymakers in the Mountain States will remove the mystery surrounding taxation by adopting a tax transparency website.

What. A. Night. More than 500 packed the Boise Centre on Friday night to hear the 17th U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Dr. Ben Carson and the Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel at Mountain States Policy Center’s first annual Boise dinner. To kick off the night, attendees were treated to a moving rendition of the national anthem by a choir and orchestra of students from Treasure Valley Classical Academy. During the dinner, Idaho Governor Brad Little helped present former Governor Butch Otter with MSPC’s Elevation Award. Kim Strassel noted the importance of having good research to help inform the public debate by saying, “This is why I love traveling across the country to speak to free market think tanks. Mountain States Policy Center is helping put the focus back on facts.” Dr. Ben Carson encouraged the packed crowd to become more involved in the governance of our country noting, “Most of America has common sense. What Americans are missing is courage.” Video of the presentations will be available on MSPC’s YouTube channel soon. MSPC’s Spring Dinner with Kayleigh McEnany will be on April 12 in Coeur d'Alene. The Boise dinner fundraiser raised more than $200,000 to help fund the work of MSPC. On behalf of the entire board and staff of Mountain States Policy Center, thank you to everyone for making last night a success! Details on next year’s Boise dinner are coming soon.

Is the U.S. Supreme Court posed to slam the door shut on efforts by some to impose wealth taxes across the country? We may soon find out. Multiple states, Idaho and Montana included, along with over 25 organizations have filed amicus briefs in favor of a Washington state couple, Charles and Kathleen Moore against the United States, for what is anticipated to be the biggest tax case to reach the Supreme Court of the United States in several decades. This upcoming term, the highest court will hear Moore v. United States, which is on appeal from the 9th Circuit. This litigation poses the Court with the ultimate question: is a realization event necessary for the federal government to impose a tax? A realization event occurs when a taxpayer has money in their hands. Here is what we know about the case: The Moores hold an 11% ownership interest in KisanKraft, a farming manufacturing company operating out of India. Since the Moores bought in, the company has done exceptionally well, with profits increasing each passing year. The Moores are seeing gains on paper from their overseas investment, but they haven’t cashed in here in the United States. They were taxed on this increase in investment value, which only existed on paper. The Moores' position is that the tax imposed is unconstitutional under the Sixteenth Amendment. They argue several long-standing precedents apply such as Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), “for ‘a gain’ to be income, it must be ‘received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal.” They also are relying on a case which was a landmark, thirty-five years after Eisner, Comm’r v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955), defining income as “undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which taxpayers have complete dominion.” (emphasis added). These arguments are to be expected, given “the realization requirement gives us consistency, objectivity, and certainty in tax.” (See: The Fundamentals of Federal Taxation). The Moores argue that the Ninth Circuit essentially took away the constitutional limit of the federal government to only tax what is deemed as income, and that, “This case is the cleanest vehicle the Court will ever see to address realization under the Sixteenth Amendment.” (Petitioner’s Brief, Page 3). The dispute arose due to Section 965 of the Internal Revenue Code, the repatriation tax, being applied to the Moores. This tax was a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, requiring U.S. corporations operating outside of the country to transfer wealth back, a one-time tax. The portion affecting the Moores requires that any person who holds more than 10% of a foreign company that is composed of over 50% U.S. ownership, also called a “CFC”, is subject to taxation; realization event, or not. The Moores were placed in this category due to their 11% ownership in KisanKraft, a CFC. Sec. 965 was codified to combat companies leaving the U.S. and making their money elsewhere. The Government’s position is that while it is true that the government has not historically implemented a tax without realization, “the Supreme Court has made clear that realization of income is not a constitutional requirement. See Helvering v. Horst (1940) ("[T]he rule that income is not taxable until realized . . . . [is] founded on administrative convenience.” Moore v. United States, 36 F.4th 930, 936 (9th Cir. 2022). Essentially, the Government seeks to overturn the definition put forth in Glenshaw Glass, that “undeniable accessions to wealth” are taxable. The Government seeks to broaden what constitutes a taxable event. If the Court decides in favor of the Moores, it is likely the Court will attempt to sever the statutory language. This would be the easiest solution, as it would allow for the single clause of the repatriation tax to discontinue while maintaining the other portions of the Trump tax legislation, and there is a strong presumption of severability. See Barr v. Am. Ass’n of Political Consultants. If the Court sides with the government, this decision would have great implications for Americans - both financially, and administratively. Not only would the government create greater amounts of paperwork for the taxpayer and the government, but it would also tax money that individuals don’t actually have, in their hands. The greater concern this case presents is the impact on the legality of wealth taxes. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation amicus brief offers what several Mountain State policy analysts believe the Court will do; “This Court could uphold the MRT for C corporations but excuse individuals such as the Moores. This Court could determine that the MRT does not violate the realization requirement because the business realized them even if the individuals did not receive a distribution." Under this likely approach, the purpose of the MRT is maintained while upholding the constitutionality of a realization requirement. The Moore name might be on the documents, but there are many Americans whose interests could be significantly hindered if the government prevails. As stated in my previous Pinnacle article on the reversal of Chevron, this is a conservative Court. This is not a Court that has shown a desire to increase tax liability. It is unlikely the majority will be receptive to accepting the Solicitor General’s arguments on behalf of the government during oral arguments. But, as lawyers say daily, it depends.

Women gathered in Spokane this week to learn about the free market’s power to improve lives. More than 100 guests attended The Woman Panel on September 27 to hear from women in policy and education. The Woman Panel has recently partnered with Mountain States Policy Center. It is a monthly meeting of women ‘who believe in the power of free-market principles and solutions’ and who are inviting all to hear these solutions. The Women and Education Panel featured Joanna Hyatt (School Choice Advocate Unlimited Co-Founder & Board Member), Pam Orebaugh (CV School Board, Nursing Teacher University Level), and Natalie Poulsen (20-year teacher Former Public Schools and Faith Christian Academy). The women in policy panel featured Mountain States Policy Center’s policy analysts Amber Gunn and Madilynne Clark. Women in Education Hyatt, Orebaugh, and Poulson began the evening highlighting how choice benefits education. The panelists shared their experiences of limited school choice and how children suffer, especially the most disadvantaged. During COVID, these women witnessed the harm restrictive policies cause students and they stood up for better choices. Joanna Hyatt watched school closures damage students and concluded that parents need access to more education choices to help their children. “Because when there is only one choice, that isn’t really a choice,” Ms. Hyatt said of public schools, which are the only option government gives families if they don’t have the means to pay for their children’s education twice (once in the form of tax dollars, and once in the form of private tuition or homeschool costs). Competition drives schools to perform better and creates better outcomes for students. Natalie Poulson followed the data and found that masks were not effective in school settings and led to negative consequences in child development. Pam Orebaugh sees how local school boards are limited by national and state teacher unions and federal and state legislative policies which ignore local input. For effective change, state policy makers need to hear the voices of constituents sharing free market principles. These three women stood up for effective and valuable schooling in its many forms and encouraged those in attendance to do the same. Better schools will only be possible if more people insist upon free market solutions in their communities. Women in Policy The women of Mountain States Policy Center shared how capitalism is a force for good in the world. Amber Gunn taught attendees about the pervasive social and economic philosophies which preach what economist George Gilder calls the “materialist superstition’—that the world is a fixed pie and a zero sum game, where one person’s wealth directly correlates with another person’s poverty. From Thomas Malthus in the 1700’s to Paul Ehrlich in the 1960’s, many economists have wrongly believed that the world’s population growth would result in mass starvation and famine, and that brutal totalitarian measures were the only solution to the world’s resource problem. But these dooms day social philosophers and economists wildly misunderstand the power of the free market. Although population exponentially increased following the industrial revolution, so did the total production of goods and value generated in the economy. Wealth is not material; it is knowledge. As Thomas Sowell once noted, the cave man had every available resource at his disposal that we do today, but the difference between our age and the stone age is knowledge. As our world population has increased, so has the collective brainpower and knowledge needed to solve the world’s resource and shortage problems. Capitalism is the force that has driven extreme poverty from nearly 80% of the worldwide population in the 1820s to less than 10% of the population today. The innovative power of the free market has made more goods available for lower prices. Over the last several decades, the prices of goods subject to competition (particularly foreign competition) have fallen as barriers to trade have come down around the world. Prices of non-tradeable goods subject to regulatory capture, such as healthcare, college tuition, and housing have surged. It is the free market that has offset rising costs of goods that are highly regulated by government. The iPhone 14, which costs about $1,000 today would have cost $101 million in 1991 for the same technologies. It is the power of the free market that makes these goods available to us. Madi Clark added that not only is capitalism a force for good for the economy and population as a whole, but free market principles are a force for good for the individual. The pursuit of happiness is an essential human right, but it is a struggle for many in the United States today. The power of the free market enables people to pursue happiness despite the economic and social battles around them. Madi shared research affirming that work, an essential value in the free market, helps individuals feel valuable. The women in policy panel also addressed COVID policies in the mountain states. States with the most restrictive regulations, like Washington, faced and will continue to face the steepest costs from COVID-19. Whereas, other mountain states like Idaho were a port in the storm and are an example to look to in future health crises as the balanced government intervention with the reality of effective choices. Amber Gunn encouraged the crowd to share free market choices within their families, neighborhoods, and communities. The heart of a free market is voluntarism. We have the most potential for good and for change within our personal spheres of influence. Rather than looking to coercive governments to solve all of our problems, we should put our own hands to work by meeting local needs, running businesses, and supporting local non-profits. Madi Clark added that MSPC will be working on the Free Markets are for Everyone project in the coming year, which will potentially include children’s books encouraging free market principles. MSPC is looking forward to our partnership with The Woman Panel and the voices of the free market which we will have the opportunity to learn from in the coming months. A special thank-you to our sponsors Chris and Dalene Patterson, Holliday Heating and Cooling, Holiday Inn Express Spokane Downtown, and to Bonnie Quinn for her organization of this event. Join us for The Woman Panel – Immigration and Law Enforcement on Wednesday, October 25th at 7 pm at the Gathering House. Register Today! Stay tuned for future events of The Woman Panel across the Mountain States region.

We are reviewing the fiscal process in the Mountain States to provide a resource comparing Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. To help with this project, MSPC reached out to the budget office for each state. Here is my interview with Kevin Hibbard, Director of Wyoming’s State Budget Department, on the state’s fiscal process. The questions we posed are in italics. Spending/tax limits – Does the state have a constitutional or statutory spending and/or tax limitation (i.e. supermajority requirement to raise taxes)? Mr. Hibbard: “No, Wyoming does not have a supermajority requirement to raise taxes.” Balanced budget requirements – Does the state have a constitutional or statutory balanced budget requirement? Mr. Hibbard: “Yes, the state has a constitutional balanced budget requirement. Article 16, Section 2 says: ‘No debt in excess of the taxes for the current year, shall in any manner be created in the State of Wyoming, unless the proposition to create such debt shall have been submitted to a vote of the people and by them approved; except to suppress insurrection or to provide for the public defense.’ When building the state’s budget, agency requests cannot exceed forecasted revenue. The state budgets on a biennial basis.” Restricted/protected reserves – Does the state have a constitutional or statutory requirement for restricted/protected reserves? If yes, is a certain percentage of revenues required to be automatically allocated to reserves? Mr. Hibbard: “Yes, there are several restricted and protected reserves, and a percentage of revenue sources are dedicated to permanent funds also. Here is an example of where the tax sources are deposited.” Non-partisan revenue forecast – Does the state have a non-partisan revenue forecast process? If not, how are revenue forecasts handled? Mr. Hibbard: “Yes, as described by our Budget Data Book: ‘The Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (CREG) formulates anticipated state revenues, which are used by the executive branch and the Legislature in the budgeting process. These CREG forecasts occur in October, followed by the release of the October CREG report. The release of the October CREG forecast has been scheduled to provide final revenue information from the prior fiscal year and be proximate to the Governor’s development of budget recommendations.’ The January CREG report updates the forecast for the legislative session. Here is the most recent CREG forecast.” Budget outlook – Does the state have a standing budget outlook process? If yes, how long of a time horizon does it cover? Mr. Hibbard: “Yes, it is incorporated within the CREG. That forecast covers six fiscal years. As described by our Budget Data Book: ‘Wyoming’s state budget uses the prior biennium’s appropriation, also termed base budget, to arrive at a standard budget by modifying the base budget by a limited number of factors in statute or from language in the prior budget. Any further adjustments in the form of increases or decreases require a request by the agency, followed by a recommendation by the Governor, action by the Joint Appropriations Committee, and finally, approval by the House, the Senate, and the Governor.’” Line-item veto/discretionary spending reduction authority – Does the Governor have line-item veto authority and/or the authority to reduce agency spending if a deficit occurs? Mr. Hibbard: “Yes, line-item veto authority for bills that include appropriations. There is also a budget reduction measure in statute, and the Governor can reduce budgets.” Tax structure – What are the main tax sources (and rates) for general fund spending? Mr. Hibbard: “Here are the details from our Budget Data Book: ‘The general operations of State government and K-12 education are funded by five sources: sales and use taxes, severance taxes, federal mineral royalties (FMRs), ad valorem taxes, and investment income. Funds for the general operation of state government are collected and deposited into the state General Fund (GF) and Budget Reserve Account for distribution established by state law. The largest source of revenue for state general operations is sales and use taxes. Wyoming imposes a four percent statewide sales and use tax shared with the state, counties and municipalities . . . Several major revenue streams and the distribution of revenues are governed by the Wyoming Constitution. As a result, there are constitutional limitations on the distribution of several major sources of revenue collected by the State. What is not included in the constitutional list is left for the Legislature to prescribe.’” Audits – Does the state have an independent process for fiscal, compliance, and performance audits of state spending? What entity is responsible for the state’s federal single audit and ACFR? Mr. Hibbard: “Yes, Wyoming's Department of Audit. Publication (ex. ACFR) examples can be found here.” Performance-based budgeting – Does the state place high-level performance outcomes directly into the budget? Mr. Hibbard: “Yes, and each Standard Budget and Exception Budget (deltas) require ties to the Strategic Plan. However, this is not what is commonly known as performance-based budgeting. Here are examples of how this works: Wyoming Budget Process and Instructions for Preparing Biennial Budget Requests 2025-2026.” Credit ratings – What are the current credit ratings for the state? Mr. Hibbard: “Here is the most recent report from S&P: ‘S&P Global Ratings' issuer credit rating on Wyoming (AA/Stable) is supported by the state's historical maintenance of very large fund balances, record of midbiennium adjustments in the event of revenue shortfalls, and low overall debt profile. These strengths are somewhat offset by cyclical components of the state's economic and revenue base, which is rooted in minerals.’” Thank you, Mr. Hibbard, for your time answering these questions and your service to Wyoming. Additional Information Idaho’s fiscal process – An interview with the Division of Financial Management Montana’s fiscal process – An interview with the Office of Budget and Program Planning

Senior MSPC staff and a few board members had the opportunity to meet with Montana Governor Greg Gianforte this week to talk about various policy reform options. Governor Gianforte expressed interest in the possibility of adopting Truth in Taxation and a tax transparency website to help provide additional details about how taxes are imposed in Montana. We thanked the Governor for his strong support for advancing education choice options like public charter schools and Education Savings Accounts (ESA). Here are some of the policy reforms enacted this year in Montana under the Governor's leadership: Passage of two bills allowing for the creation of public charter schools Education Savings Accounts for special needs children Income tax reduction to 5.9% Income and property tax rebates totaling $3,800 for each Montana family Along with the Gianforte meeting, MSPC held events in Helena and Missoula to learn more about the concerns of local residents and opportunities to advance free market policies. Some of the hot topic discussion items included tax reform, education choice options, management of public lands, and open primaries. Thank you to everyone who came to our Montana events. We hope to see you also at future MSPC events across the Mountain States. One of our major policy dinners is coming soon on October 6 in Boise. That event will be keynoted by former HUD Secretary Dr. Ben Carson and Wall Street Journal columnist Kim Strassel. Additional details are available here. Updated 9/29 MSPC received a note today from Montana Governor Gianforte following up on our meeting last week.

Without government control, how will the internet survive? Just fine, thank you very much. This fall marks the six year anniversary of the end of "net neutrality" - a policy adopted in 2015 under the Obama Administration that seemed to target a problem that didn't exist. It was supposed to prevent internet service providers (ISP's) from favoring or limiting internet traffic. It sounded good - in fact, large national companies and celebrities alike supported the idea - and predicted doom and gloom when it was repealed by the FCC in 2017. Now, with a new political majority in charge of the FCC, the federal government is discussing resurrecting the policy. The problem is this heavy-handed, government regulatory approach would stifle competition and the freedom of the internet. And, to the extent that there was any issue in the first place, it would have been better dealt with using current laws that encourage and enforce competition. Meantime, we now have the data to prove that the internet speed was improving before 2015 (pre-net neutrality), and continues to increase in this post net neutrality world. Average broadband speeds in the United States have increased dramatically over the past six years. Average mobile internet speeds are up more than 300%. And we see very few - if any - examples of ISP's blocking any content. Ironically, the only reports of that happening are coming from the companies that actually supported net neutrality regulations in the first place. Unfortunately, the biggest factor that determines your internet speed is the place you live. Typically, more rural areas experience slower internet speeds. This is why we need more innovation - and less regulation - to expand and improve access. The last thing we need is government control.

In today's rapidly evolving economic landscape, access to high-speed internet is critical for small businesses and education opportunities. Idaho is going to have a big opportunity to expand broadband the right way with $583 million in federal funding. According to the state’s Department of Commerce: “Over the next six months, the Idaho Office of Broadband will work diligently with stakeholders and local communities to further develop the State’s initial proposal for how these funds should be used and dispersed.” Idaho is working to involve the public in this important decision with its "Broadband 101 Event Series". "Link Up Idaho, in coordination with the Idaho Office of Broadband and the Idaho Broadband Advisory Board (IBAB), are thrilled to introduce Broadband 101, a groundbreaking statewide initiative and event series aimed at bringing high-speed internet access to every corner of Idaho. The Broadband 101 event series is not only here to educate attendees about the benefits of high-speed internet, but also to hear the thoughts and ideas on how the State can improve broadband expansion across Idaho." (Idaho Commerce Media Alert) When state governments are accessible with public workshops like this, they operate with a higher degree of transparency. This transparency ensures that businesses, both large and small, understand the rules of the game. When businesses trust that the government is operating fairly and predictably, they are more likely to invest, innovate, and expand. Access to high-speed internet has effects on our everyday lives, and this event series not only connects us with our government and state leaders, but helps the public play a role in the decision-making that will greatly impact our lives. The sponsors of the events being held throughout Idaho stated: "In today’s digitally-driven world, high-speed internet has become an indispensable tool for education, healthcare, business, public safety and daily communication. Broadband 101 will explain the benefits that high-speed internet can bring to the public and Idaho communities. Additionally, the office will be gathering comments and ideas on broadband expansion in communities. Your feedback will shape our future policies and initiatives to ensure that no one in Idaho is left behind in the digital age." If you're interested in learning more about broadband please be sure to attend one of the upcoming Idaho events by following the link HERE. Also, stay tuned for an announcement from MSPC on this topic soon.

Like many homeowners I recently received my property tax assessment. It showed a huge increase in my home’s value. My reaction was that of excitement thinking about the growth of my home equity. For others, this type of news could lead to deep fear believing a massive property tax bill will soon follow. For reasons we’ll discuss, this isn’t necessarily the case. Property taxes are an important part of the tax base for school districts, local governments, and many states. Though based on a relatively straightforward calculation, they are among the least understood taxes by taxpayers. Although there are variations in each state, the general formula for property taxes is the value of the property multiplied by the tax rate. Too often taxpayers focus on assessed values instead of the spending decisions made by government officials when considering their property tax burden. With record property tax assessment increases occurring in states like Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming, homeowners are concerned about the potential impact on their property tax bills. First, it is important for taxpayers to know that assessments are just a part of the calculation. The main driver of property taxes is spending increases approved by policymakers and voters themselves through levies. The assessor is not responsible for any property tax increase, the budget writers are. This is why efforts to restrict property assessments are often misplaced and lead to other problems. The better way to control property tax increases is on the spending side and/or with levy restrictions. One way to help bring greater transparency to the fact spending is the main cause of property tax increases is with a reform called Truth in Taxation. To bring more transparency to property tax increases, Utah was the first to adopt Truth in Taxation in 1985. Here is how the Utah Legislature describes the tax transparency process: “The basic concept of the system is that taxing entities may only budget the same amount of property tax each year, unless they have ‘new growth’ (not just change in value on existing properties) or go through a very public process of notifying the public and holding a public hearing on the proposed revenue increase. To achieve this, as taxable values change, the tax rate automatically adjusts to provide a constant amount of revenue. When values increase, the tax rate adjusts down to provide the taxing entity the same amount of revenue as it received in the prior year. When values decrease, the tax rate adjusts up to provide the same amount of revenue.” Utah’s Property Tax Division further explains: “Property Tax increases require a Truth in Taxation process of public disclosure. Taxing entities are required to follow a series of date specific steps, including notification to the county, newspaper advertisements, parcel specific notices, and a public hearing, before adopting a property tax rate above a calculated certified tax rate. The timeline is different for a fiscal year taxing entity (budget cycle July 1 to June 30) and a calendar year entity (budget cycle Jan 1 to Dec 31).” Before moving forward with property tax increases, government officials in Utah need to first fill out a “Tax Increase Checklist” and comply with the “Tax Increase Requirements” details under Truth in Taxation. Along with Utah, Truth in Taxation currently exists in Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Tennessee. Montana Governor Greg Gianforte succinctly explained the need for policymakers to focus on property tax transparency when he said: "To ease the property tax burden, we must reform our system and bring greater transparency, accountability, and responsibility to local spending." Even though Idaho doesn’t have a statewide property tax and the legislature recently enacted property tax rebates to help with the local tax burden, Truth in Taxation is still needed to help empower taxpayers to better engage and understand their property tax burden and the connection to spending. With the cry for property tax reform getting louder, policymakers in Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming should focus their efforts on improving transparency and voter engagement with Truth in Taxation.

When it comes to the proposed merger of Idaho-based Albertsons and the supermarket giant Kroger, there's no need for a cleanup on aisle three - the free market is at work. The Federal Trade Commission is reviewing the sale to make sure it complies with antitrust laws. This is exactly what they should be doing. But newspapers and some politicians have raised alarm bells about the partnership. The Washington State Treasurer recently wrote "the consolidation of Kroger and Albertsons may lead to the creation of food deserts, which disproportionately affect vulnerable populations and can have severe health implications." One newspaper said "after more than two years of high inflation, much of it landing on consumers at the grocery store, protection from reduced competition — and its higher prices and reduced accessibility to daily goods and services — must be assured." A valid concern - but is it well placed? Ten of the top 15 American grocers are not physical supermarkets. Amazon, Wal-Mart and Costco are the biggest three names in grocery. Even if Kroger and Albertsons merged, they wouldn't come close to approaching half of Costco's value. If you take Amazon out of the equation, Walmart and Costco combined account for nearly 30% of the grocery market. It's hard, however, to remove Amazon, as only 44% of Americans buy most of their groceries at physical stores. Before COVID, that number was 63%. More Americans have moved their shopping online. Competition is everything. History has shown that strong competitors only increase the benefits for consumers. 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." Albertsons and Kroger have even 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. As with any proposal, there is fear of the unknown. But we shouldn't let fear destroy an opportunity to actually increase competition and improve the outlook for the consumer.

There is currently a debate occurring in Idaho and Montana (among other locations) about whether to move from a closed primary to an open primary for elections. In Idaho, however, this policy debate has also been married with imposing Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). This is despite the fact that earlier this year a supermajority of the Idaho legislature adopted HB 179 prohibiting RCV. That bill was signed by Governor Little on March 24. Ranked Choice Voting continues to be controversial across the country. In 2020, 50.55% of voters in Alaska adopted a Top 4 and RCV ballot measure. Opponents of how RCV has worked since in the state, however, are currently gathering signatures in Alaska for a new ballot measure to repeal Ranked Choice Voting. Showing concern across the political spectrum, the Democratic party in Washington D.C. last month filed a lawsuit to stop the city from using Ranked Choice Voting. Washington State has had experience both with an open primary and with local voters in Pierce County adopting and then quickly repealing Ranked Choice Voting. Here are details on the state’s voter-approved Top Two open primary: “The Top 2 Primary was passed by the people in 2004 as an initiative. Initiative 872 passed by almost 60%. In 2005, before the new law was implemented, the Washington state Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian Parties sued in federal court. The lower courts imposed an injunction prohibiting the state from implementing the new Primary, but in March 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the new law. Washington state used the new Primary for the first time in the 2008 Primary and General Elections.” As for RCV, this is from a 2009 blog post by the Washington Secretary of State’s Office discussing why 71% of Pierce County voters repealed Ranked Choice Voting after using the system only once: “It has always been kinda confusing to explain, but advocates believed it would be extremely popular and then possibly catch on elsewhere. Its biggest usage was last year when a new County Executive and other offices were filled this way, running in tandem with the regular state primary and general elections. It went downhill from there. Voters participating in an auditor’s survey said by a 2-to-1 margin that they didn’t like the system. And this year, it was back on the ballot –and voters have thrown it out by a 71-29 margin.” So, what does Washington State’s top election official think about all of this? Here is my interview with Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs discussing his support of open primaries and his concerns with Ranked Choice Voting (my questions are in italics): Washington voters several years ago adopted an open primary reform called the “Top Two.” Could you briefly explain the benefits of an open primary and how the Top Two works? Secretary Hobbs: “We don’t register by political party in Washington, and the top two primary system creates a wide-open path for voters to choose any candidate they want in the Primary. It then provides a general election between voters’ top choices without giving systemic support to partisanship. After our first top two primary in 2008, which was also the nation’s first, surveys showed that 76% of voters liked the process, which puts the spotlight in the right place: on candidates for office, not political parties.” Several states are considering moving not only to an open primary but also tying that policy to Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). Washington state has some experience with RCV with Pierce County adopting and then immediately repealing the process. Do you have any concerns with RCV and would you recommend instead that states just use a “Top Two” styled format for open primaries? Secretary Hobbs: “Ranked-choice voting adds a layer of complexity to voting that threatens to disenfranchise people who aren’t experts at the process. This includes people living with developmental disabilities – such as my son – for whom choosing one candidate is more straightforward than figuring out how to rank a list of them. Additionally, it can be a challenge for newly-naturalized citizens to adapt to American elections. Converting some elections to ranked-choice voting would increase the obstacles to exercising their rights as Americans. Top-two primaries present none of these challenges. You pick your favorite, then you send in your ballot. That’s something people can easily grasp. I stand firmly behind Top Two and encourage other states to learn from our usage of it.” Earlier this year Secretary Hobbs shared similar concerns when testifying before Washington’s legislature (1:25:20 mark of public hearing). It is important to remember that elections don’t belong to private political parties. While private political groups have the right to identify their standard bearers, that doesn’t mean voters should be restricted in deciding who advances to the general election and represents them in office. As explained by the Washington Secretary of State’s Office concerning the Top Two: “Each candidate for partisan office may state a political party that he or she prefers. A candidate's preference does not imply that the candidate is nominated or endorsed by the party, or that the party approves of or associates with that candidate. The party preference has no impact on election operations or which candidates stay in the race to the General Election. The two candidates who receive the most votes in the Primary, and who receive at least 1% of the votes, advance to the General . . . The parties do not own a spot on the General Election ballot. Instead, the two candidates who appear on the ballot at the General Election are the two who received the most votes in the Primary. These candidates might prefer the same party, different parties, or not state a preference. In some races, all candidates who file declare a party preference for the same party.” Moving our election systems to a clean open primary like Washington’s Top Two, is a debate worth having. Adopting open primaries, however, need not be limited to a take-it-or-leave-it proposition tied to the controversy of Ranked Choice Voting.