A flat rate is good. A lower flat rate would be better. Idaho state lawmakers and Governor Brad Little have, twice now, lowered Idaho’s income tax rate. In the September special session, Idaho joined the flat tax revolution when lawmakers adopted a flat rate of 5.8%. But there’s still work to be done. On an episode of MSPC's Peak Policy this past week, State Senator Jim Rice of Caldwell said the flat tax "reduces the degree to which you distort the economy with taxes." We learned that state tax collections were “$50 million below expectations for the first three months of the fiscal year,” but that the state still has a $1.5 billion surplus. That $1.5 billion amounts to about $855 for every person living in the state. Despite national economic trends, Idaho hasn’t felt an economic slowdown – at least not yet. The revenue increases and surplus cash have shown consistency. Meaning there is plenty of room to give families and business further relief. In fact, what lawmakers could pursue is tying Idaho’s increases in revenue to automatic reductions in the state income tax rate. For example, if the state revenue consistently comes in at a rate of, let’s say 20% over what was expected, the tax rate would automatically be lowered. This could negate the need for any special or extraordinary sessions of the legislature to address tax reductions as they would kick in at certain revenue levels. The exact revenue percentage over expectations, the period of time required to make sure it is consistent, and the corresponding income tax rate reduction would all need to be set by lawmakers. But adopting this type of policy would send a clear message that Idaho will continue to lower the income tax burden it is placing on families and businesses. And the more the economy booms, the lower the rate. Why does Idaho need to show it is committed to lowering its income tax burden even more? Because it runs the risk of falling behind other states. In Iowa, for example, legislators have lowered the state income tax to 3.9%. The rate will kick-in by 2026. Arizona has lowered its income tax to a flat rate of 2.5%. Utahns enjoy a flat income tax rate of 4.95%. Mississippi just lowered its income tax to 4.0%. The economic trends show states lowering their income tax rates in a responsible, taxpayer-friendly way. At 5.8%, Idaho’s rate is still relatively high. Just 16 states have a higher rate. Even Illinois (4.95%), Maryland (5.75%) and Massachusetts (5.0%) are lower than Idaho. The Gem State also shares a border with two states that don’t have an income tax – Washington and Wyoming. Montana, by way of comparison, has a top rate of 6.75%. Lowering the income tax also helps a state better-handle economic downturns. Credit agency S&P says states that rely more on sales taxes, rather than income taxes, demonstrate less sensitivity to economic cycles. It is in the interest of both Idaho and Montana officials to figure out ways to lower their income tax rates while state revenues continue to surge.

We’re getting our first look at the first education choice bills to be introduced in the Idaho and Wyoming legislatures this year. In Idaho, a draft of the “Freedom in Education Savings Account” (ESA) bill has been circulating online and discussed in a news release by the Idaho Freedom Caucus. The seven-page document creates ESA’s in Idaho within the following guidelines: · Total amount per student would be equal to 80% of the state funding for public schools. That means families who sign up would have access to approximately $5,950 to use for educational expenses or even private school tuition. Leaving 20% means the state’s public schools actually stand to gain a 20% bonus for not educating a child. The likelihood is that per student funding in K-12 public schools in Idaho would rise. · Approved expenses include tuition and fees and private schools, but a host of other items as well, including educational therapies, educational and psychological evaluations, tutoring and much more. Transportation and technology would also be included. · Requires random quarterly and annual audits of the ESA’s, giving the state Attorney General the option to investigate misuse of funds. · Allows for 3% of funds to be used for administration. · Creates parent oversight committee of six parents participating, to be appointed by legislative leadership and the governor. · Parents must apply regularly and sign an agreement on the use of the funds. · Left over funds would roll over year to year. Meantime in Wyoming, legislators in the House have officially introduced HB0194 – the Wyoming Freedom Scholarship Act - with a boatload of sponsors. The Wyoming bill includes: · The total amount per student would be $6,000 and adjusted annually with inflation. Can be used for tuition and fees at a “qualified” school or online non-public schooling, as well as tutoring, transportation, and technology. · Ensures funds can be used for “educational services and therapies including, but not limited to, occupational, behavioral, physical, speech‑language and audiology therapies.” This is especially critical for special needs students. · Language that says “No parent shall be required to include any instruction that conflicts with the parent's or ESA student's religious doctrines.” · Allows state treasurer to contract with private organization or receive gifts or grants to administer the ESA program and set up an anonymous telephone hotline for fraud reporting. · Active until a student enrolls full time in a public school. · Authority to refer suspected cases of intentional and substantial misuse of ESA funds to the department of audit or the attorney general. · Creates a seven-person parent review commission to determine effectiveness. · Allows education service providers to Register with the state treasurer to receive payments from ESAs. · For federal funds, 50% would go to school foundation program account and 50% would go to freedom scholarship account. Neither of these bills are set in stone. There will be amendments and likely changes. And there could also be other proposals put forward. Stay tuned for our analysis.

Governor Greg Gianforte gave his state of the state address Wednesday night, just hours after the Montana state Senate endorsed his income tax reduction and expansion of the earned income tax credit. The support was overwhelming - 34 in favor and 15 opposed. SB 121 would lower the state's income tax rate of 6.5% to no more than 5.9%. Some lower income earners would pay even less - 4.7%. A final vote could come as early as Thursday. In his state of the state address, Governor Gianforte said "working together, we’re providing the largest tax cut in state history, creating greater opportunities for Montanans to prosper, thrive, and achieve the American dream." Montana's income tax rate was the subject of our recent study on reducing income taxes in both Montana and Idaho. Lawmakers in both states could go a step further now by adding revenue triggers to automatically lower the rate in the future.

In the debate over education choice in Idaho, much has been made about the Blaine Amendment of Idaho's constitution. Article IX Section 5 of the Constitution of Idaho proclaims: "Neither the legislature nor any county, city, town, township, school district, or other public corporation, shall ever make any appropriation, or pay from any public fund or moneys whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian or religious society, or for any sectarian or religious purpose, or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church, sectarian or religious denomination whatsoever; nor shall any grant or donation of land, money or other personal property ever be made by the state, or any such public corporation, to any church or for any sectarian or religious purpose; provided, however, that a health facilities authority, as specifically authorized and empowered by law, may finance or refinance any private, not for profit, health facilities owned or operated by any church or sectarian religious society, through loans, leases, or other transactions." Put simply, opponents of education choice have interpreted this to mean that parents can't use choice options provided by the state for private, religious schooling. Roughly three-dozen states have similar Blaine amendments in their state constitutions. It’s worth noting the “shameful pedigree” and “clear manifestation of religious bigotry” that these amendments entailed when they passed. It is a disconcerting chapter of history, further intensified by education choice opponents’ vigorous defense of the provisions. The way the argument goes, if the state were to set up a voucher program, where private schools are paid directly for student enrollment, some of those vouchers would go to religious schools, which would violate the Blaine Amendment. If Idaho’s constitution were the only factor at play, that might be the end it. However, two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases have curtailed Blaine Amendment restrictions: Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020) and Carson v. Makin (2022). The Espinoza decision held that government attempts to exclude religious schools from public scholarship or tax credits are subject to strict scrutiny, meaning lawmakers must prove they have a “compelling interest” in restricting the free exercise of religion of scholarship or tax credit recipients. The Carson majority held that “a neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause." In other words, states cannot fall back on their Blaine Amendments to justify prohibitions on public funding of schools solely due to their religion. In addition, a state cannot discriminate against religious beneficiaries of public scholarships or tax credits by forbidding them from using those benefits at religious schools. As the Institute for Justice writes, “these obstacles to educational freedom are now largely a dead letter.” Senator Brian Lenney of Nampa says he plans to put forward legislation repealing the amendment. The RS was on the Senate Education Committee schedule this week. While we are still waiting to see the exact bill language, the effort to rid the state of this discriminatory amendment is long overdue. As the Supreme Court of the United States writes in Carson v. Makin:

Montana food security groups turned out in full force recently to support House Bill 274: Establish a farm to food bank grant program. Over twenty-five individuals testified in support of HB 274, with no opposition. Like all areas of the nation, Montana families face rising inflation and growing food insecurity. Representatives from food banks, healthcare, farms, and community groups consistently urged support for the proposal. Proponents of farm to food bank programs describe these programs as a win-win-win for the communities they serve. Struggling families win with access to local food resources, small farmers win by finding another local market, and even the environment wins as a home is found for otherwise wasted goods. Denying the potential benefits of HB 274 is impossible, especially when the need is great. Jamie Quinn of Flathead Foodbank shared that from 2021 to 2022 their local food bank saw a significant increase in customers. · 43% increase in households using the foodbank. · 27% increase in individuals using the foodbank. · 123% increase in unsheltered individuals using the foodbank. · 103% increase in working households using the foodbank. · 60% increase in veterans using the foodbank. · 32% increase in disabled individuals using the foodbank. These demand increases were accompanied by a 29% decrease in donations and a 78.7% increase in food purchases by the foodbank. Quinn shared that when there is less on the shelf at the store. There is less to glean. Other food bank directors echoed similar struggles. HB 274 would appropriate $1 million from the state general fund, as a one-time infusion of funds, available July 1, 2023, conditional upon passing the Montana legislature. Though altruistic, will the farm to food bank program be money well spent by the people of Montana? Farm to food bank programs have grown in popularity over the last fifteen years. The programs allow local farmers to sell otherwise wasted produce to local food banks. By helping farmers cover the cost of picking, transporting, and processing the crop, farmers can proceed with harvesting the otherwise wasted commodity. Un-harvestable crops exist for farmers when market prices decrease, supply is overabundant, there is an on-farm surplus, or labor is unavailable or too costly to proceed with harvest. Farm to food bank programs step-in to help the farmer bring this valuable food to a needy population. Though many farmers in Montana and nationally already donate to local food banks, the farm to food bank programs are created to increase the number of participants. Farm to food bank policies mostly operate under the assumption that direct payments to farmers are critical to success, even if payments only cover pick and pack out (PPO) costs to get the product to the food bank. Some programs will even pay farmers near-market-rates, like in Arizona. Tax incentives are also used in at least ten states, off-setting costs of harvest for farmers and incentivizing donations. Federal funds have already been dispersed to the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services to work with the Montana Food Bank Network in 2022. The goal was to establish a grower network to donate surplus product and livestock. The $31,687 in funds were to be used to cover the costs of creating processing systems for livestock, produce, and fresh milk. The grant amount is nowhere close to covering even one of these supply chains. Montana was not issued funds from the federal government for this program in 2023. House Agriculture Committee member, Representative Knudsen, asked the proponents of the bill how far the $1 million would go. Katie Adams of Teton County Food Bank shared that in their community of 1,700 people the food bank issues a fresh fruit and vegetable coupon that can be used at the local grocery story. Last year, the Teton County Food Bank served 120 families and reimbursed the local grocery store $2,500 for fresh fruit and vegetables and $1,900 for milk. They also had a $7,000 increase in food purchases to supply the food bank. Looking at these numbers and what it would mean for the entire state of Montana, MSPC used the number shared by Lorianne Burhop, Director of Montana FoodBank Network, that 38,000 Montana families are served by a food bank every month. Overall purchases by foodbanks have probably increased by about $2.2 million over the last year, if the statewide increase was the same as Teton County. If a similar coupon approach was used, fresh fruit and veggies would cost $791,667 and dairy would cost $601,667 to serve the 38,000 families using the foodbank network (the farm to food bank would not use coupons but this calculation helps give context to the numbers).

Idaho’s constitution makes it very clear: “all political power is inherent in the people.” Article 3 defines one of the most sacred covenants – the process regarding initiatives and referenda: The people reserve to themselves the power to approve or reject at the polls any act or measure passed by the legislature. This power is known as the referendum, and legal voters may, under such conditions and in such manner as may be provided by acts of the legislature, demand a referendum vote on any act or measure passed by the legislature and cause the same to be submitted to a vote of the people for their approval or rejection. The people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws, and enact the same at the polls independent of the legislature. This power is known as the initiative, and legal voters may, under such conditions and in such manner as may be provided by acts of the legislature, initiate any desired legislation and cause the same to be submitted to the vote of the people at a general election for their approval or rejection. The question is how that process unfolds. As the constitution makes clear – the power of initiative is subject to such conditions and in such manner as provided by acts of legislation. SJR 101 is a constitutional amendment placed before the Idaho legislature to change the process of gathering signatures for statewide initiatives. Instead of gathering signatures totaling six percent of voters from at least 18 legislative districts, it would require 6% from each of the state’s 35 legislative districts. Proponents say the current process makes it “possible to acquire more than one half of the total number of signatures required to place a question on the ballot from a single legislative district.” This is a concern shared by several other states which have distribution requirements. One particular state to note is Massachusetts, where no more than 25% of signatures can come from any one county. This may be informative to the debate in Idaho. This is not Idaho’s first attempt at strengthening its distribution requirement. In 2001, a law requiring 6% of signatures from 22 of the 44 counties in the state was struck down in a case called Idaho Coalition United for Bears v. Cenarrusa. At the time, the court wrote: "...it easy to envision a situation where three-fourths of Idaho's voters sign a petition but fail to get it on the ballot because they could not collect 6 percent of the vote in rural counties." The ruling was appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the lower court’s ruling. That is not to say SJR 101 is unconstitutional. In fact, the 2001 ruling clearly said “Idaho could achieve the same end through a geographic distribution requirement that does not violate equal protection, for example, by basing any such requirement on existing state legislative districts.” Still, lawmakers should always be very cautious about placing additional requirements on the right of the people to make law.

Voting may be your civic duty, but should the government be forcing you to do it? Some members of the Washington State legislature say yes. Senate Bill 5209 would not only require all citizens be registered to vote, but would go a step further, adopting this language: The legislation doesn't seem to include any language about consequences for not voting, but the language itself may be enough to frighten some citizens. Is that really the goal of government? Only 27 countries in the world have adopted this scheme, known as "compulsory voting." The effort in Washington seems to be the latest attempt by legislators to change the system to increase voter turnout. Washington State already moved to mail-in voting. When that didn't do much for voter turnout, lawmakers decided the problem was citizens didn't have enough stamps. After it added postage, voter turnout remained static. Now, lawmakers want language that says you're required to vote. Not only is this a bad idea, it's also likely to be unconstitutional. The First Amendment protects your freedom of speech, and also protects you from compelled speech. Even though the legislation says you can leave the ballot blank, and even though there is no enforcement mechanism, requiring someone to submit a ballot is still forced speech. The Washington legislation has a scheduled hearing on January 31st.

The tug of war between the federal government, the states and local governments has been part of our Republic since the founding - and this year is no different. Today, the Idaho State House approved House Bill 22 - a measure that seeks to require cities to enforce state laws or risk losing state sales tax revenues. Two other bills have been introduced that would do similar things. On the flip side, Rep. Steve Berch has introduced two new bills in the Idaho Legislature: HB 44- Allowing local government regulation of auxiliary containers, including plastic bags HB 48- Removes prohibition on minimum wage-setting by local governments In short, these bills would allow a city like Boise to not only ban plastic bags, but adopt its own, higher minimum wage. The city of Missoula is also asking the Montana state legislature to revoke a law that prevents it from banning plastic bags in the city. First, let's talk about the issue of banning plastic bags. The research shows this is a bad idea if you're interested in protecting the environment. The United Kingdom’s Environment Agency released a report in 2011 that highlighted the carbon impact of paper, reusable plastic, and cotton bags is higher than single-use plastic bags. In fact, scientists said you’d need to reuse a cotton bag more than 130 times to have an impact on the environment. Danish researchers had similar findings. The school of Forestry and Natural Resources at the University of Georgia released a study earlier this year: "The study found California communities with bag policies saw sales of 4-gallon trash bags increase by 55% to 75%, and sales of 8-gallon trash bags increase 87% to 110%. These results echo earlier studies that also showed increases in sales of smaller plastic trash bags." The issue of raising the minimum wage via local governments is yet another troubling policy. Idaho's current minimum wage is the federal rate of $7.15 per hour. A patchwork of local governments all adopting their own rates would make it harder for small business owners. Policymakers needn't go far to see the concept playing out in Washington State, where local governments have adopted various rates higher than the state. But the broader concern in this policy would be its impact on workers. Research continues to show higher minimum wages lead to lower compensation. From the Harvard Business Review: "For every $1 increase in the minimum wage, we found that the total number of workers scheduled to work each week increased by 27.7%, while the average number of hours each worker worked per week decrease by 20.8%. For an average store in California, these changes translated into four extra workers per week and five fewer hours per worker per week — which meant that the total wage compensation of an average minimum wage worker in a California store actually fell by 13.6%. This decrease in the average number of hours worked not only reduced total wages, but also impacted eligibility for benefits." Typically, local control is always preferred to top-down government mandates. The government that is closest to the people is usually the government that is most responsive. But it's also important to recognize that, while the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reserves powers to the states, state constitutions do not typically reserve power to the local governments. Is it a state government responsibility to protect local governments from bad policies? Not necessarily. But as Thomas Lindsey wrote, "the battle between state authority and local control comes down to the choice between government regulation and individual liberty."

The three most prominent bills for Gov. Greg Gianforte’s red-tape relief push was heard before the House Business and Labor Committee on Wednesday and Thursday and drew both praise and pushback. The bills’ main concern is with occupational licensing requirements for who may work in Montana as a doctor, electrician, accountant, massage therapist, or any other of the state-licensed professions. Each licensing program has separate boards and administered occupations in an effort to protect the public from unqualified or incompetent practitioners. As the rules are not standardized, each licensing board has different requirements. Republican and Democratic senators across the board have supported these initiatives. Sponsored by Billings Republican Rep. Bill Mercer, these bills would make it easier for licensed professionals in other states to receive permission to work in Montana. House Bill 152 is the largest of these three bills, sitting at 234 pages with an ambitious aim. If passed, it would repeal 400 sections of current law, amend 187 and insert 47 new ones in its standardization of professional licensing board authorization. House Bill 87 standardizes how state licensing boards are organized and House Bill 115 standardizes penalties for those who practice without a license. The intent of these bills is to promote efficient government by streamlining Montana’s code book — a campaign promise by Gianforte and currently spearheaded by Lt. Gov. Kristin Juras. Juras introduced 159 of these bills to the committees. As of Jan. 24, 84% of the bills have passed the first committee and 58% have passed the first chamber.

Starting in January 2020, reports of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) entering the United States were a reality, and no longer an international talking point. Some of the first U.S. cases entered Washington State and then spread throughout the country. By mid-March, all the western states had confirmed COVID-19 cases and the United States issued stay-at-home guidelines soon after. From the onset of the pandemic, every state in the union approached the health emergency with different strategies. Three years after initial COVID-19 containment measures were implemented, many state and local organizations have yet to conduct an after-action report. Quarantine guidelines, mask mandates, school closures, work shut-downs, and contact tracing were some of the many efforts conducted by state governments to slow the spread of the COVID-19 virus. But did any policies actually help stop the spread? Throughout the United States, federal, state, and local-level governments addressed the growing concerns around the deadly virus with a myriad of attempts. Ranging from borderline totalitarian control to more laissez-faire approaches, each state followed its own trajectory, and the results are mixed. Even international comparisons of COVID-19 management by country have yielded little information. Despite early promises of politicians and bureaucrats, one individual regulation has not completely controlled the spread, nor has one effort resulted in complete eradication. Further complicating matters are the negative consequences from COVID-19 regulations – education deficiencies, economic turmoil, supply shortages, and mental health challenges. Ignoring the results of COVID-19 containment measures by state only sacrifices future healthcare needs to soothe many politicians who are unwilling to acknowledge wasted efforts. Acknowledging regulatory failures and identifying areas of success can guide policy makers and health workers in future disease management scenarios. This report assesses the efficacy of the containment measures used by governments throughout the west from February 2020 to November 2022. Using an international database of COVID-19 regulations, compiled by a team of Oxford researchers (OxCGRT), this report analyzes the COVID-19 containment measures of Idaho, Montana, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. READ IN-DEPTH STUDY HERE>>

We are about a month into the official start of winter. Thirty days ago, the snow pack for the mountain states was looking positive. That is still the case in Idaho and Washington, but Montana numbers are lagging a bit. There's still plenty of time left to change these numbers. Often times, strong March or April storms can push the totals over the top. We'll continue to keep an eye on all of them.

Two U.S. Supreme Court cases will determine the future of free speech and expression on the internet - one is Twitter v. Taamaneh, the other is Gonzalez v. Google. Mountain States Policy Center has joined free market think tanks from around the country, including the Center for Growth and Opportunity, the Beacon Center of Tennessee, the Minnesota Freedom Foundation, Illinois Policy, the Independence Institute, the Pelican Institute, the Libertas Institute, the James Madison Institute, the Rio Grande Foundation and the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs in signing on to an amicus brief regarding the Gonzalez v. Google case. We're all in agreement with concerns about freedom of expression and the dynamism of the internet economy as we know it. What is Gonzalez v. Google about? Simply put, it questions whether Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes platforms from liability when they make targeted recommendations of user-generated content. The case dates back to the ISIS killing of Nohemi Gonzalez in the November 2015 Paris attacks. There is no direct link between YouTube and Gonzalez’s death, no evidence that YouTube was used to plan the attacks or recruit the attackers. Nonetheless, Gonzalez’s family sued YouTube’s owner, Google, claiming that YouTube had hosted ISIS recruitment videos around the time of the attacks. The trial court applied Section 230 and dismissed the suit. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision. Now the case is headed to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs contend that their lawsuit is not about the terrorist videos themselves, but about YouTube recommending those videos to users. This case is unusual in that there was no circuit split for the Court to resolve, and it presents the Court with an opportunity to directly decide the extent of Section 230’s protections for internet platforms. As our organizations point out in our brief: "Removing Section 230’s litigation-cost shield would devastate many startups. For example, when a family-owned candle shop creates a website and allows customers to comment on their favorite candles, and the shop organizes the comments, that is protected by Section 230. When a local rock band sets up an online forum for its fans to discuss the band’s music or upcoming shows, and ranks the posts, that is protected by Section 230. Even relatively small sites use algorithms to help users and drive traffic. All would thus be harmed if Section 230 were constricted to exclude automated recommendation systems." If the Court finds in favor of the Plaintiff, platforms will likely remove content that anyone asserts is defamatory or dangerous. While no one defends ISIS recruitment videos on the internet, there may come a time when a party in power declares certain political views as extremist or dangerous. If the Court rules in favor of Gonzalez, then many platforms will not bear the risk of hosting or allowing this content to rise to the top of newsfeeds or searches. For those who have built alternate media structures to circumvent traditional media gatekeepers, this poses a risk of shutting down their distribution channels on social media platforms or search engine optimization rankings. The only dynamic, growing part of our national economy in recent years has emanated from the internet. By gutting Section 230, the internet will cease to be the robust digital economy that has existed for the past 30 years.

A new WalletHub survey has once-again rated the Mountain States has one of the best places to retire. Wyoming ranked 4th, Idaho ranked 9th overall and Montana came in at 15th. Washington was near the bottom - at 43rd. The WalletHub survey ranked Montana as one of the best "taxpayer" states, while Idaho was ranked one of the best for its low property crime. Washington, again, was ranked one of the worst. The high rankings for Wyoming, Idaho and Montana reflect the work done by lawmakers and business leaders to keep taxes and regulations low, and protect communities from crime. You can see more of the in-depth study here.

Washington state is getting in on the national movement for Education Choice. Just as Idaho and Wyoming advance bills on ESA, the Evergreen State is considering a program of its own. HB 1615 in Washington state is the “Students First Program.” It would create an Education Savings Account in Washington that would give priority to students with special ed services, those who are low income, and students in failing schools. The funds would be available via a debit card managed by the state. It is estimated that the original amounts will total roughly $10,600 for all students participating, with another $10,000 available to special ed students. Parents could use the ESA for tutoring, private school tuition, therapies and services, computer hardware and much more. The program is somewhat limited – as only 91,400 students could participate. And parents must agree to spend the money properly. By agreeing to take the funds, parents and private institutions would not be subject to changing their admission policies, creed or any other practices. As we have previously shown, Education Choice options can dramatically improve outcomes for not only students who take advantage of the program, but students who remain in a typical public school setting as well. Unfortunately, Washington state’s Superintendent of Public Instruction has said he will fight any ESA-type options from being advanced this session. A hearing on the bill is scheduled for Thursday. Information on the Idaho and Wyoming bills is available here. The Idaho legislation is being introduced in a committee hearing this afternoon.

Idaho House Bill 54 deals with election integrity. At the present time, citizens can use student photo identification from a high school or college to vote. HB 54 would remove that option. The bill also "removes the option of signing an affidavit at the polls in lieu of personal identification." If HB 54 passes, Idaho law would require one of the following forms of identification to cast a ballot: An Idaho driver’s license or identification card issued by the Idaho Transportation Department. A passport or identification card, including a photograph, issued by an agency of the U.S. government. A tribal photo identification card. A license to carry concealed weapons or an enhanced license to carry concealed weapons. There are varying standards for voter ID across the country. As the National Conference of State Legislatures points out, "some states request or require voters to show an identification document that has a photo on it, such as a driver’s license, state-issued identification card, military ID, tribal ID, and many other forms of ID. Other states accept non-photo identification such as a bank statement with name and address or other document that does not necessarily have a photo. In total, 18 states ask for a photo ID and 17 states also accept non-photo IDs." Idaho's photo ID laws have been labeled "non-strict." Polls have shown overwhelming support across party lines for voter ID at the polls. And the U.S. Department of Education says college students are "more vulnerable to identity theft because of the availability of their personal data and the way many students handle this data."

Transportation systems are the backbone of a strong local economy, allowing people and goods to move efficiently and effectively. At its core, transportation infrastructure is no different than any other type of public or private good and is subject to the law of supply and demand. In the case of traffic congestion, the demand for road travel exceeds the supply of roads, or capacity, the result of which leads to lost time, lost fuel and excess pollutants emitted into the atmosphere. Mountain States Policy Center is pleased to produce The Path - Responsible transportation policy in the Mountain States. Policymakers should focus on the three key principles laid out in this report, which will not only benefit travelers, but freight movers and suppliers. Agricultural states like ours benefit immensely when goods and services can flow and strengthen regional economies over our competition. Spend resources based on demand Users pay, users benefit Establish performance measures

If the state capital of Idaho ignores state and federal law, it could cost the city millions in revenues. That’s the message state lawmakers are sending with the introduction of two bills this legislative session. Senate Bill 1006 would add a new chapter to the Idaho Code to provide for enforcement of federal immigration law. If cities are found in violation, they could be denied sales tax distribution funds. House Bill 2 calls for the withholding of sales and use tax revenues from any local government that issues proclamations, or takes similar action, to defy state law and refuse to investigate or enforce Idaho’s abortion statutes. At the moment, only one city in Idaho may meet the definitions laid out in SB 1006 and HB 2 – the city of Boise. In July of 2022, the Boise City Council passed a resolution that limits the use of city funds to investigate abortions and enforce Idaho’s abortion law. In 2017, the Boise City Council – while not proclaiming itself a sanctuary city – passed a resolution proclaiming itself a “welcoming city” on the topic of immigration. In 2019, Boise received “welcoming city” status from what the Idaho Statesman calls “a national nonprofit that sets guidelines for cities aiming to be more inclusive to immigrants and other residents.” The issue of local enforcement of state and federal laws has become a hot topic over the past five years, not only with the sanctuary city movement but also the overturning of Roe vs. Wade last summer. At question is whether municipalities are free to ignore or refuse to cooperate with laws passed at the state or federal level. Idaho Code Title 31, Section 22 says: “ (2)… Whenever in the opinion of the governor any peace officer of this state refuses to offer assistance when requested to do so, or refuses to perform any duty enjoined upon him by the penal statutes of this state, the governor shall direct the attorney general to commence action under chapter 41, title 19, Idaho Code, to remove such officer from office. (3) When in the judgment of the governor the penal laws of this state are not being enforced as written, in any county, or counties, in this state, he may direct the director of the Idaho state police to act independently of the sheriff and prosecuting attorney in such county, or counties, to execute and enforce such penal laws. In such an instance, the attorney general shall exclusively exercise all duties, rights and responsibilities of the prosecuting attorney.” Boise’s tax revenues could take a big hit if the bills are passed. Sales tax revenues make up about $24 million of the city’s yearly budget – its third largest revenue source. When asked about the Boise City Council’s actions, Governor Brad Little said “as elected officials we must uphold the law." There is a difference, however, in how a city enforces state laws and how a state enforces (or seeks to ignore or nullify) federal laws. This essay from Robert Levy with the Cato Institute is informative: It acknowledged that states can declare federal laws unconstitutional; but the declaration would have no legal effect unless the courts agreed. Here’s what Madison wrote: State “declarations … are expressions of opinion, (intended only for) exciting reflection. The expositions of the judiciary, on the other hand, are carried into immediate effect.” Madison also published Notes on Nullification in 1834. There, he wrote that an individual state cannot unilaterally invalidate a federal law. That process requires collective action by the states. Since then, nullification attempts have failed on three occasions: In 1828, South Carolina tried to nullify two national tariffs. President Andrew Jackson proclaimed nullification to be treason; Congress authorized Jackson to send troops, and the state backed down. In 1859, the Supreme Court rejected nullification in Ableman v. Booth. Booth had frustrated recapture of a slave in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act. Wisconsin’s Supreme Court held the act unconstitutional, but the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the conviction. In 1958, after southern states refused to integrate their schools, the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron held that nullification “is not a constitutional doctrine … it is illegal defiance of constitutional authority.” Fans of nullification count on the states to check federal tyranny. But sometimes it cuts the other way; states are also tyrannical. Indeed, if state and local governments could invalidate federal law, Virginia would have continued its ban on inter‐​racial marriages; Texas might still be jailing gay people for consensual sex; and constructive gun bans would remain in effect in Chicago and elsewhere.

Transportation systems are the backbone of a strong local economy, allowing people and goods to move efficiently and effectively. At its core, transportation infrastructure is no different than any other type of public or private good and is subject to the law of supply and demand. In the case of traffic congestion, the demand for road travel exceeds the supply of roads, or capacity, the result of which leads to lost time, lost fuel and excess pollutants emitted into the atmosphere. Traffic congestion may also lead to capping growth and access while limiting labor markets. In essence, the number of available jobs, available workforce, and accessible services is limited by both distance and time. The more traffic congestion, the fewer opportunities to participate in the economy. Freedom of mobility allows the public to travel wherever and however they choose with no - or minimal - restrictions. In recent decades, many public officials have waged campaigns to "discourage" certain modes, like cars, by implementing regressive tolling schemes, limiting parking, taking travel lanes away from drivers, and increasing traffic congestion to push people to other modes of transport or eliminate trips entirely. Instead, public officials should work to accommodate travel demand instead of restricting or manipulating it, thereby providing the public fair access to goods and services across the region. Where public assistance is needed, it should be delivered quickly, safely, and efficiently, and managed conservatively with strong budgets and planning toward the future. Threatening service cuts in the absence of higher tax rates does little to build certainty among those most vulnerable in our society. Policymakers should focus on three key principles, which will not only benefit travelers, but freight movers and suppliers. Agricultural states like ours benefit immensely when goods and services can flow and strengthen regional economies over our competition. NOTE: "The Path" will be released on Thursday, January 19th.

Joint resolution SJ5 in the Montana state legislature pushes Congress to not only fully fund public safety and law enforcement agencies, and services on tribal reservations in Montana but also calls to fund their courts, detention facilities, people who need attorneys, victims and juvenile services, rehab and reentry programs and crime prevention programs. Sen. Bob Brown, R-Trout Creek sponsored the measure and has called on each of Montana’s tribal governments and Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte to adopt and send similar resolutions to the U.S. Congress and the Montana Secretary of State’s Office by June 30. Five representatives from reservations or law enforcement on reservations testified in favor of the measure. They explained they were severely underfunded and in the face of rising crime need more federal money to support law enforcement and public safety programs. Despite almost every law enforcement agencies in Montana faced with increased crime rates in their jurisdictions, reservation law enforcement is struggling more due to the inability to hire and retain officers based on lack of funds. SJ5 comes as Lake County moves to withdraw from Public Law 280, a decades-long agreement with the state over law enforcement funding on the Flathead Reservation. Additionally, a bill that would require the state to provide funding under that law is set for a hearing this week.

Montana legislators on Tuesday will hold a hearing in the Senate Taxation Committee to discuss whether to cut the state income tax. The proposal - Senate Bill 121 - would slash Montana's top income tax rate from 6.5% to 5.9%. It would also create a new income tax bracket that would be even lower - 4.7% - for lower income citizens. As the fiscal note details, the average full-time Montana resident would see a reduction in their tax bill of about $150 per year. The bill also increases the Earned Income Tax Credit from 3% to 10%. This is a positive step forward for Montana and helps move the state to more parity with other states that impose income taxes. Idaho, for example, just dropped its income tax to 5.8%. We have highlighted the movement to lower income tax rates among the states here. Legislators may want to go a step further and tie further rate reductions to increases in state revenue. We detail how to adopt revenue triggers in our latest study. Another tax bill will also be heard on Tuesday. Senate Bill 124 would simplify Montana's corporate taxes. Senator Greg Hertz says "by moving to a single sales factor on corporate taxes, we’ll be cutting taxes for many Montana businesses and treat them the same as out-of-state corporations, instead of our current system that penalizes home-grown Montana companies.”