The Treasure State is one of the only states left that does not permit charter schools - but that might be about to change. A slew of education choice bills were introduced in the Montana legislature over the past 10 days. They include House Bill 549, introduced by Rep. Fred Anderson. HB 549 authorizes the state public board of education to approve charter schools, so long as they meet 30 different requirements in their application. Another bill, House Bill 562, would provide more flexibility and room for innovation. Charter schools are tuition-free schools that are publicly funded but independently run. Most charter schools are exempt from many state laws and regulations, but are subject to a contract that includes goals, fiscal oversight and accountability. If charter schools don't perform, they can be closed. Similar to other state charter school laws, the Montana bill does not allow charter schools to pick and choose students. In fact, it says plainly: "A public charter school shall enroll all students who wish to attend the school unless the number of students exceeds the capacity of a program, class, grade level, or building. If capacity is insufficient to enroll all students who wish to attend the school, the public charter school shall select students through a lottery." The legislation also provides for a funding mechanism, saying "it is the intent of the legislature that a public charter school receive operational funding on a per-pupil basis that is equitable with the per-pupil funding within the general fund of the located school district." Charter schools are popular with parents, yet Montana remains one of the only states in the country without them. In some states, hundreds of charter schools are available to families who may be looking for an alternative education model. Still, throughout the country, more than 3.7 million students attend a charter school. In states like Washington, charter schools are limited mostly due to the state teacher's union, which has resisted any effort to fund them. The result is a small number of students in the Evergreen State who can take advantage of a charter school opportunity. The number of students who have access to charters in the western states is impressive. Arizona and Utah lead the way. Despite the claims of opponents, charter schools are public schools. They don't pick and choose students, and often times they serve more underserved students than local district schools. For instance, in Washington state, eight of 10 charter schools open in 2018 served more special needs students, as reported by The Seattle Times. Charter schools in Idaho have an impressive record. There are more than 70 statewide, and some are listed as among the top schools in the nation. The research shows Montana students would be well-served by having public charter school options.

When the Idaho Senate education committee heard an education choice bill this week, dozens of people signed up to testify – I was one of them. Invited to do so by members of the committee, I thought it important to provide a viewpoint based on our research and facts. As the father of a special needs child, I also wanted to provide a personal perspective. Unfortunately, time was cut short for many offering comments. Still, it took two days of committee meetings to get through all of the testimony. I listened intently to every person who spoke both in favor or opposed. As we reached the end of the second day, it struck me – very few people were speaking on behalf of the children. Of course, the lobbyists were there in full force, including the Idaho Education Association, the Idaho School Boards Association, the Idaho School Administrators association, and the beat went on and on. Time and time again we heard the argument of how the bill would or would not impact schools, and the money administrators have to spend. Too few times did we hear about how this would (or would not) help kids. The disappointing truth is that kids don’t have a special interest group or union to offer testimony or insight. All they have is their parents – and some legislators. Some parents found the time to offer their perspective. Surrounded by her children and testifying remotely, Chantelle Holman reminded lawmakers “one size of education does not fit all children.” Bessie Yeely brought her special needs child to the hearing and said she was concerned about the impact of the bill on his future. Pointing to disappointing results, mother Nicole Trakel said “were asking for better choices.” But the reality is those who spoke on behalf of the kids were outnumbered. Much of the argument became about the money instead of the issue of improving outcomes. Mountain States Policy Center has always taken a look at this issue from the perspective of what can improve outcomes for all children. After all, the money that so many people worried about this week is supposed to fund their education. Whether you think we spend too little or too much on K-12, the funds don’t belong to any administrator or union. The vast majority of education choice studies show a positive impact, not only for students who participate but also those who stay in the public school setting. Education choice is not about closing public schools – in fact, public schools are part of education choice. Choice makes public schools better and will increase the amount of money we’re spending per student, per year. It may also have the effect of easing overcrowding in Idaho schools. This isn’t about helping rich families either. Stats from the research show roughly half of the Arizona ed choice participants have never attended a private school before. Whether it’s this particular bill or another, policymakers should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The goal is to advance more options, for more children, and improve educational outcomes for all.

The Idaho state Senate is now considering a new education choice bill – SB 1144 – that seeks to expand the state’s already-successful Empowering Parents program. While it doesn’t go as far as Senate Bill 1038 and several other education choice proposals put forward thus far, it is a modest step in the right direction. It also follows some of the recommendations we made in our Education Choice Improves Outcomes study published in January. Here’s what SB 1144 includes: Expansion of the Empowering Parents to include “micro grants” of $1,000 to be used for “eligible education expenses” Addition of transportation to and from a facility where education program is offered as an “eligible” expense Addition of “tuition grant” of $6,000 that can be used for academic instruction, both traditional tuition and/or for the hiring of a certified teacher for a micro-school There are some limitations. First, the bill makes it clear the money is subject to appropriation by the legislature, meaning it’s not open-ended. Second, priority is given to students who belong to a family with a gross income under $60,000. If funds are still available, priority is given to students belonging to families with less than $75,000. And if funds are still available after that, money is distributed on a first-come, first-serve basis. Funds would have to be spent within two years after they are awarded. Micro grants per family are capped at $3,000. And the tuition grants can be given to no more than 2,000 students. The cost of the bill is $30 million for the ongoing micro grants, as well as $12 million for the tuition grants for five years. Because the program is labeled a “pilot,” the bill requires the legislature to review the tuition grant process again before the 2028 legislative session. When we testified before the Senate Education Committee on February 15th, we encouraged legislators not to make perfect the enemy of the good. While this bill is not perfect, it does include expansions that can help families get the educational options they need. When it shows success, legislators can move to expand it even more.

One of the number one tax complaints throughout the state is the increasing cost to afford the property tax on a home. A surge in the number of buyers moving in from other states, as well as a regional booming economy, have caused both Idaho and Montana property tax assessments to balloon, and property tax rates have followed. As we previously reported; “From 2020 to 2021, there was a 20.2% increase in the assessed value of Idaho property, totaling $230.7 billion. Then from 2021 to 2022, assessed values increased by 43.7% to reach $332.1 billion. To put this in perspective, in the last market run-up from 2005-2006 before the Great Recession, Idaho only experienced a 19.8% increase in assessed property values. Despite lowering levy rates throughout Idaho’s local governments, the property tax amount paid by each homeowner has increased substantially.” Property tax relief has been built into Idaho’s property tax system for decades. Beginning in 1980, homeowners received a property tax exemption up to 50% of the value of their home, originally capped at $10,000. This exemption was deducted from the assessed value of the home, while the remainder was then the taxable value of the property. In 2006, Idaho began to rely upon the Federal Housing Price Index to set the exemption amount for property taxes and this number fluctuated with the housing market. In 2016, the Idaho legislature voted to cap the property tax exemption at $100,000 (which later increased to $125,000). Because Montana does not rely on sales taxes, more of the burden is placed on property and income taxes. Numerous proposals have been put forward to address the issue of rising property taxes in both states. One such bill in Montana sought to fix appraisal values. But it has not moved. In Idaho, it appears lawmakers are coalescing around a new proposal that combines many popular elements, as Clark Corbin of the Idaho Capital Sun reports. Some of those elements include taking a portion of state funding and giving a credit to property tax bills, while in the second year of implementation the amount property owners pay for school district bonds and levies would also be reduced by state funding. Finally, it adds a provision that removes March election dates for bonds and levies. On the Senate side, the most recent property tax reduction bill is SB 1111, “dedicates 4.5% of annual sales tax revenues to property tax relief, providing a subtraction from each homeowner’s total property tax bill.” These changes may help reduce the cost for property owners in the short term, but will they stop overspending at the local level in the long run? It remains to be seen, but some state officials have laid some of the blame of higher property taxes on local governments that continue to spend and pass on costs to taxpayers.

Education choice is on the agenda again as the Idaho legislature comes down the home stretch. This week, two bills will be heard in committee that would expand options for Idaho families. They don't go as far as SB 1038 did, but SB 1144 and HB 289 still move the ball down the field. We analyzed 1144 - expanding the state's popular Empowering Parents program - last week. HB 289 is an update to a bill Representative Lance Clow tried to introduce in the House Education Committee several weeks ago. Unfortunately, the majority of the committee didn't allow the bill to get a public hearing. The legislation would create a program called the Idaho Education Opportunity Program (IEOP) which would create Education Savings Accounts that include 80% of the per-student state funding ($6,975) could be used for educational purposes, including tuition, at an accredited private school or on other education-related expenses including "reasonable transportation, education equipment and technology, educational therapies, fees for testing, admissions, fees to manage the IEOP account, tuition for individual classes, uniforms, tutoring, and technology devices." There are some restrictions. First, students with a family income level of less than $70,000 are given priority. Second, to renew the account parents have to demonstrate that their student is at grade level, or has shown one full year of academic growth. The new version of the bill also has several changes from that previous proposal: Requires a prompt response on applications On renewal of IEOP student at a private school, the parent shall provide to the state the results of the nationally normed test As lawmakers consider the proposal this week, it is important they fully understand what it would and would not do. At the previous committee meeting, several legislators made the mistake of calling ESA's "vouchers." As we have previously pointed out, there is a big difference between the two. Furthermore, it's important to note that, even if families decide to take advantage of the program, 20% of a student's funds would still go to the public school. This means it is likely that per-student funding in Idaho public schools would increase and overcrowding would ease.

Idaho legislators rushed to submit possible relief for the growing property tax pressure by February 13th. The 36th day of Idaho’s legislative session is the deadline for new bills to be submitted. There are currently five proposed pieces of legislation awaiting a hearing in the House Revenue and Taxation Committee. One twin piece of legislation, which does not involve a tax increase, was submitted to the Senate. Three proposals were introduced on February 2nd. House Bill 77 was submitted by Senator C. Scott Grow (R-Eagle). The proposal would divert 4.5% of Idaho’s sales tax revenue to property tax relief. Each of the 44 counties would receive a designated property tax relief amount from the state and divide the funds among the properties. Homeowners would receive the subtraction from their property tax bill in addition to the existing homeowner exemption. The bill would not increase taxes for citizens, but the state would have a cost of $150 million annually, to offset local government costs. Senator Grow submitted a similar piece of legislation to the Senate February 10th but proposed a budget increase of $205 million from state funds. This was Senate Bill 1075 and the bill was allowed introduction because it was not a tax increase. House Bill 78, submitted by Representative Bruce Skaug (R-Nampa), proposes reinstating the property tax exemption as it was written pre-2016. The previous method for the existing property tax exemption was capped based on the Federal Housing Price Index (HPI) and up to 50% of the value of the home. In 2016, the Idaho legislature capped the maximum value at $125,000, instead of using the HPI. HB 78 would remove the cap and index the maximum exemption to 50% of the HPI. This would place the value at about $180,000 in 2022. House Bill 79 was proposed by Speaker of the House Mike Moyle (R-Star). HB 79 is a multi-faceted bill that tackles school facility funding, local school board elections, and property tax relief in one pass. The bill’s property tax relief would raise the property tax exemption from $125,000 to $150,000. On February 9th, two more similar proposals were brought forward which addressed the current property tax exemption for hospital facilities. House Bill 109, proposed by Josh Tanner (R-Eagle) would remove the property tax exemption for outlying offices and facilities not related to the designated exemption purpose, i.e. administrative offices. The property tax exemption would remain in effect for the main hospitals statewide. House Bill 110, also proposed by Josh Tanner (R-Eagle) would remove exemptions for hospitals throughout the state. However, the nuances of which buildings and how much would be exempted would be left up to county commissioners. Addressing the escalating property tax pressure is a must-do for the Idaho state legislature in 2023. However, the next step for property tax relief remains to be seen as all six bills are awaiting a hearing.

Today, the Idaho Senate Education committee passed SB 1038 - a bill that would create universal Education Savings Accounts (ESA's). The vote was 6-3. The bill now heads to the floor. We previously analyzed the bill, introduced by Senator Tammy Nichols, here. Education choice is a hot topic in the legislature of Idaho. About 100 people showed up to testify on the bill. It took two days to get through all of the testimony, and some people had to cut their remarks to just one minute. Several of the legislators on the committee invited Mountain States Policy Center to testify on the proposal. Here are my written comments (not all were given in person because of time constraints): CHAIRMAN LENT, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE… I’M CHRIS CARGILL, THE PRESIDENT OF THE MOUNTAIN STATES POLICY CENTER. THANK YOU FOR THE INVITATION TO TESTIFY THIS AFTERNOON. MOUNTAIN STATES POLICY CENTER IS THE STATE’S NEWEST FREE MARKET THINK TANK. WHILE WE DON’T OFFICIALLY ENDORSE OR OPPOSE ANY LEGISLATION, I DO WANT TO TELL YOU THAT THE BILL THAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY – SENATE BILL 1038 – FOLLOWS MANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WE HAVE MADE REGARDING EDUCATION CHOICE. WE HAVE ALWAYS TAKEN A LOOK AT THIS ISSUE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT CAN IMPROVE EDUCATION OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN. THE MONEY BELONGS TO THEIR EDUCATION. IT DOESN’T BELONG TO ANY ADMINISTRATOR OR UNION. AS WE’VE WATCHED WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN OTHER STATES, WE CREATED AN EDUCATION CHOICE CHECKLIST TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS MOST IMPORTANT WHEN IT COMES TO ADOPTING THIS POLICY. THE LIST INCLUDES: FLEXIBILITY AVOIDING CLASS WARFARE AVOIDING ENROLLMENT CAPS AVOIDING PRIOR-YEAR SCHOOL REQUIREMENTS OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ALLOWING FUNDS TO ROLL OVER AND NEVER ENCROACHING ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. WE WERE DELIGHTED TO SEE SO MUCH OF THAT CHECKLIST REFLECTED IN THIS PARTICULAR BILL. THE VAST MAJORITY OF EDUCATION CHOICE STUDIES SHOW A POSITIVE IMPACT, NOT ONLY FOR STUDENTS WHO PARTICIPATE, BUT THOSE WHO STAY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AS WELL. EDUCATION CHOICE IS NOT ABOUT CLOSING PUBLIC SCHOOLS. PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE PART OF EDUCATION CHOICE. IN FACT, EDUCATION CHOICE WILL MAKE PUBLIC SCHOOLS BETTER AND WILL INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY WE’RE SPENDING PER STUDENT, PER YEAR. IT COULD ALSO HELP EASE OVERCROWDING. THIS ISN’T ABOUT HELPING RICH FAMILIES. STATISTICS FROM THE RESEARCH SHOWS ROUGHLY HALF OF THE ARIZONA PARTICIPANTS HAVE NEVER ATTENDED A PRIVATE SCHOOL BEFORE. FROM A BEST PRACTICES PERSPECTIVE, WE WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND A TARGETED ESA PROGRAM SPECIFICALLY FOR SPECIAL NEEDS KIDS WHO MAY STAY IN THEIR PUBLIC SCHOOL. IN CLOSING, LET ME JUST SPEAK PERSONALLY. A LOT HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN. I HAVE A SPECIAL NEEDS SON. HE MEANS THE WORLD TO ME. HE NEEDS EXTRA HELP OUTSIDE THE TYPICAL CLASSROOM SETTING. LUCKILY, MY WIFE AND I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO AFFORD TO GET HIM THAT HELP. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER FAMILIES WHO CAN’T AFFORD IT? WHETHER ITS THIS PROPOSAL OR ANOTHER, WE ALWAYS URGE POLICYMAKERS TO NOT LET PERFECT BE THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD. OUR KIDS DON’T HAVE A UNION. THEY DON’T HAVE A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP. ALL THEY HAVE IS THEIR PARENTS, AND YOU. WE’RE THANKFUL FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS POLICY.

As Idaho, Washington, Wyoming and Montana now consider Education Savings Accounts to help families improve educational outcomes, one argument against seems to be used more than any other: "it just helps rich kids" already in private school. It's a dismissive statement, meant to turn the discussion away from improving outcomes and into a fight over rich versus poor or us versus them. But it's repeated often. In my recent interview with KTVB's Brian Holmes, the issue came up again. But the Arizona numbers have changed - and changed dramatically. Arizona now says its getting about 150 ESA applicants per day. Roughly half of the total applicants now are those who were previously enrolled in public schools, meaning they don't necessarily come from rich families that were already enrolled in private schools. The fact of the matter is that education choice actually helps level the playing feel. Families who are wealthy are going to be able to afford education choice no matter what. Families who can't afford it should not be assigned to a failing school simply because of their zip code. Read more about education choice in our special section Education Choice Improves Outcomes.

There will be a hearing this Friday, February 17th on the "Worker Freedom Act" in Montana. House Bill 448 would make Montana a right to work state. What does this mean? Essentially, the government cannot force you to be part of a union to have a job. More than half the states are right to work states, including Montana's neighbors Idaho and Wyoming. In Janus v. AFSCME, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the rights of workers not to be forced to join a union and pay union dues. The majority ruling said a requirement to do so amounts to compulsory speech. "Neither an agency fee nor any other pay­ ment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. By agreeing to pay, nonmembers are waiving their First Amendment rights, and such a waiver cannot be presumed." The benefits of right to work laws are clear. Consider some of the stats compiled by Bloomberg Law. From Bloomberg's analysis: "When all 27 right-to-work states are counted together, the average hourly earnings in 2018 were $25.78 for union workers and $20.92 for a nonunion worker. In other words, for every dollar a nonunion worker earned, a union member earned $1.23. That’s a bigger relative gap, not smaller, than the national average. Meanwhile, in the 23 non-right-to-work states and the District of Columbia, union workers’ average hourly wage in 2018 was $28.26 and nonunion workers’ was $25.14, which means that union members earned only $1.12 for every dollar earned by nonunion workers. That wage gap is four cents smaller than the national average. Of course, it should be noted that, dollar-for-dollar, union workers in non-right-to-work states are out-earning their counterparts in right-to-work states by a healthy margin ($28.26 to $25.78). But then, it’s also important to consider the predominance of Northeast and West Coast states among the non-right-to-work ranks, where overall wages are traditionally higher than in the rest of the country." As we mentioned previously, union membership has been on the decline in the United States - reaching its lowest level ever this past year. In the end, if employees want to voluntarily join a union, that should be their decision. But the government shouldn't force them to do so to keep their job.

Legislative sessions in Idaho, Montana and Washington are more than a month old, and we are getting a rough idea of what could be in play as the finish line comes into sight. Before the legislative sessions began, we gave policymakers ten policy ideas they could pursue in the upcoming session. So far, roughly half of the recommendations have been introduced as legislation. Expand education choice options for families Bills have been introduced in Idaho, Washington, Wyoming and Montana for Education Savings Accounts. Montana also has legislation that calls for expansion of a tax credit scholarship program. Education freedom does not mean dismantling typical public schools. As the West Virginia Supreme Court recently ruled, policymakers can do both. Relevant legislation: Idaho - SB 1038 Wyoming - HB 194 Washington - HB 1615 Montana - HB 393 Additional Resources: Tired solutions won’t improve education outcomes for kids Types of education freedom options Require government meetings be live-streamed/recorded While there is no legal requirement for government agencies to live stream their meetings, legislators might want to consider the requirement as part of their open public meeting laws. Families are busy. They don’t always have the time to show up to a council or government agency meeting and spend four hours sitting through a long agenda. Furthermore, live stream meetings that are recorded provide citizens with an archive of what happened at the latest meeting. It is another way to hold elected officials accountable. Relevant legislation: Montana - HB 328 Additional Resources: No excuses: Government meetings should be live streamed CivicPlus: Five best practices for live streaming government meetings Continue and expand the use of remote testimony For decades, those living long distances from a state capitol had to brave icy conditions, closed passes or expensive flights to participate in the legislative process. But things changed during the COVID pandemic. Most states expanded remote testimony options. Remote testimony is now more broadly accepted than ever before. In the 21st century, there is no excuse for not allowing all citizens the opportunity to be involved in their government via technology. Remote testimony allows citizens the opportunity to give legislators their opinion on a policy being considered by any committee, without the hassle and cost of traveling to the state capitol. Relevant legislation: No legislation, but lawmakers have continued the use of remote testimony. Additional Resources: National Conference of State Legislatures Remote Testimony State by State Idaho State Legislature Remote Testimony Tips Ensure a legislative role in emergency powers Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the nation experienced executive overreach at both the federal and state level. In Washington state, for example, Governor Jay Inslee once famously claimed he was the only person in the state who had the capability to save lives. There’s no question that in a real emergency, governors need broad powers to act fast. Legislative bodies take time to assemble, so they can temporarily transfer their powers to the executive in an emergency. But when problems do last for extended periods, it is the responsibility of the legislatures to debate risks, benefits and trade-offs of various long-term approaches. Lawmakers may end up passing the very policies a governor would prefer, but they do it after deliberation as representatives of the people and do it in a public process. Relevant legislation: Washington - HB 1535 Additional Resources: Scoring executive powers in all 50 states National Conference of State Legislatures: Legislative oversight of executive emergency powers Slow the ballooning cost of Medicaid exapansion It has been four years now since voters in Idaho passed Medicaid expansion via ballot measure in a campaign pushed by Reclaim Idaho. It has been two years since the program was implemented. What are the results? There were promises of limited enrollment – 60,000. The latest numbers show more than double the projection and more than 1 in 4 Idahoans now enrolled. There were state-sought waivers to make changes to the program for the betterment of Idaho. Four were requested, and only one has been approved. How can lawmakers begin to rectify the situation with Medicaid? Idaho lawmakers can reject additional federal funding which, in turn, will limit the federal government’s role in Idaho’s program. Relevant legislation: Idaho - HB 122 Additional Resources: What to do about Idaho’s troubling Medicaid expansion Foundation for Government Accountability: How able-bodied adults and ineligible enrollees are fueling Idaho’s Medicaid enrollment surge There are still other policy ideas on the table that have not been introduced in any chamber. Lower state income tax rates and consider triggers It is clear, if Idaho and Montana are going to remain competitive (especially in the west), they need to consider further lowering their income tax rates, which are still relatively high. Montana has introduced a bill to lower the state's income tax, but it is not tied to future reductions based on revenue triggers. For example, if the state revenue consistently comes in at a rate higher than 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. About a dozen states have tax triggers. The Tax Foundation says, “well-designed triggers limit the volatility and unpredictability associated with any change to revenue codes, and can be a valuable tool for states seeking to balance the economic impetus for tax reform with a governmental need for revenue predictability.” Additional Resources: The race to lower state income tax rates States inaugurate a flat tax revolution Consider a Public School Transparency Act School district budgets are a maze of numbers and legal jargon – if you can even find them. Unless they have an accounting degree, the average parent or taxpayer cannot take the time to read through and understand all the details. School leaders know this. So, too, do legislators. One policy idea is a Public School Transparency Act, which would require all public school districts, both on the first page of their budget and also on the front page of the district’s main website, to clearly report six simple things: (1) the total amount of dollars being spent, (2) how much is being spent per student, per year, (3) the percentage of dollars getting to the classroom, (4) the average administrator salary and benefits, (5) the average teacher salary and benefits, and (6) the ratio of administrators to teachers to students. Very little extra work would be needed to provide this data and make it assessable on paper and online. Most districts already have it hidden somewhere in their budget documents. They know where to look, whereas parents and taxpayers can get lost. This policy idea received more than 80% support in our 2022 Idaho Poll. Additional Resources: VIDEO: How can we restore some faith in public schools? IN-DEPTH STUDY: Restoring some faith in public schools with a Public School Transparency Act Allow voters in Washington a say on state income tax Washington state is one of the few states that has no state income tax. Washington voters have made it clear (more than 10 times) they want to keep it that way. Unfortunately, the Washington state legislature doesn’t appear to be in the mood to listen. In 2021, it passed a new 7% income tax on capital gains. The measure was, predictably, overturned by local courts in Washington as the state constitution makes it clear that property must be taxed uniformly, and courts have ruled a person’s income is their property. Now, the issue is at state Supreme Court. And, unfortunately, lawmakers have already introduced legislation to increase the tax. Instead, Washington lawmakers should allow voters the final say on this issue. Legislators should consider advancing a constitutional amendment that would allow for final clarification, simply asking voters if an income tax should be banned in the state. Additional Resources: IRS: Washington state capital gains tax is an income tax, not an excise tax Judge rules capital gains income tax illegal Adopt gas tax transparency at the pump Do consumers in the Mountain States really know what they are paying when they fill up at the gas station? The answer is likely no. That’s because gasoline is one of the few products we purchase where taxes and fees are built into the price. This means there is no transparency about the true financial burden placed on consumers. When policymakers adopt gas tax hikes, there can be little to no accountability built into the system. The fix to this lack of transparency is what has been called “truth-in-labeling.” Additional Resources: Bringing gas tax transparency to the Mountain States VIDEO: Why we need gas tax transparency Open collective bargaining talks to public oversight Collective bargaining talks are the negotiations government unions have with government officials over salaries, benefits and working conditions. Because they involve millions of dollars of taxpayer money, they should be open and transparent. This doesn’t mean the public participates in the negotiations, but the public should be allowed to observe the process. The state of Idaho knows this. Washington state, however, is a different story. While numerous attempts have been made to bring sunshine to the secretive process, government unions have resisted every step of the way in the Evergreen State – even as polls and actual ballot results continue to show overwhelming support. Ending collective bargaining secrecy and opening government union contract negotiations to the public, as other states and cities have done, is a practical and ethical way to achieve that standard. Additional Resources: Collective bargaining in government should never be a secret Better Cities Project: Collective bargaining transparency a win for workers and taxpayers

Montana could join the list of states seeking to ban required "diversity training" by public employees. Senate Bill 222 has been introduced by Sen. Jeremy Trebas of Great Falls. It would ban diversity, equity and inclusion training conducted by the state or any of its political subdivisions, including schools. The bill language says: It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for the state or any of its political subdivisions to subject an individual, as a condition of employment, to training, instruction, or any other required activity that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels the individual to believe any of the following concepts: (a) members of one class are morally superior to members of another class; (b) an individual, by virtue of the individual's class, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive (c) an individual's moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily whether consciously or unconsciously; (d) an individual, by virtue of the individual's class, bears responsibility for or should be determined by the individual's class; (e) an individual, by virtue of the individual's class, should be discriminated against or receive (f) an individual, by virtue of the individual's class, bears personal responsibility for and must feel adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion; (g) virtues such as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the individual played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same class; or another class. SB 222 was heavily inspired by Florida’s “Stop WOKE” bill that took effect last summer. The Montana bill is a simple policy that protects the constitutional rights of workers - both free speech rights and the right to not be forced into compelled speech. The compelled speech doctrine sets out the principle that the government cannot force an individual or group to support certain expression.

One of the most important tasks for government is to be transparent. Some governments are better than others at accomplishing that goal. Idaho state Controller Brandon Woolf today launched a local section on Transparent Idaho - a website that includes thousands of pieces of data and government information, in an easy to use format. On Transparent Idaho, you can track how COVID relief dollars were spent, you can see showcases on the state budget and workforce, and you can even do an easy search to look at data in near real time. Want to see how a state agency's spending is progressing? There's a graphic for that. Care to find out how many Idaho state employees are making more than $70,000 per year? You can find that too. The new component is the local component, which allows you to dive into county, city and school board data like never before. For example, you can compare budgets of your county, and see where spending has increased or decreased. This is an example from Ada County. A plethora of city and school data is also available. Having all of this data available at your fingerprints is an enormous victory for the citizens of Idaho. Controller Woolf and his staff deserve major kudos.

Policymakers across the region and nation are always looking for ways to increase voter turnout and community involvement. Idaho lawmakers may have found at least one solution that can also save taxpayer money. House Bill 58 passed the State Affairs committee today by an overwhelming 11-2 vote. The bill would prohibit school bond and levy elections from occurring in any election but the May primary and the November general election. Right now, counties can spend thousands of dollars for these special elections, which can be hidden from voters in March and August off-cycle elections. Lower turnout means more power for special interest groups to get out their voters. There is a bounty of research that suggests this type of policy change is a good thing. Professor Sarah Anzia wrote that the low turnout for off-cycle elections increases the influence of organized interest groups like teachers’ unions and municipal workers. "While such groups tend to vote at high rates regardless of when the election is held, the low turnout in off-cycle years enhances the effectiveness of their mobilization efforts and makes them a proportionately larger bloc." Professor Mark Meredith of MIT wrote: "Direct democracy is often justified normatively on the grounds that it represents the will of the median voter. This justification is less compelling if agenda-setters are selecting the median voter. This paper demonstrates that agenda-setters can use election timing power to select voters that will be more favorable towards their policy interests. As a result, both researchers and policy makers need to seriously consider how the rules surrounding agenda establishment in direct democracy affect economic and political outcomes." Research from the Foundation for Government Accountability shows the impact of changing school elections to on-cycle. In Texas, for example, a 2006 law changed nearly 20 percent of school districts to on-cycle elections. As a result, turnout significantly increased in these school districts relative to those districts who continued holding off-cycle elections. In California, a 1986 law allowed school districts to move off-cycle elections to on-cycle years. By 2008, roughly two-thirds of school districts had moved to on-cycle elections. Controlling for other factors, this simple change increased voter turnout in school board elections by an astounding 150 percent. This isn't about making school bond or levies more difficult to pass. It's about making sure those who have to pay the bill are involved in the decision making process.

If you take out a mortgage, you typically know what your payment is going to be each month, and from year to year. But if you approve a school bond in Idaho, you may only get a range. That's because Idaho code 33-802A allows for school districts to collect up to 21 months worth of payments in a 12 month period. This can be an excellent tool for paying off debt more quickly. But does that happen? And is it really what taxpayers approved? Consider the language used to describe many of last year's school bonds: Middleton School District "Principal not to exceed $59,435,000, to be paid off within 20 years; anticipated interest rate is 3.77% per annum." Vallivue School District "Principal not to exceed $55 million, to be paid off within 20 years; anticipated interest rate is 3.78% per annum." "Not to exceed" and "within" are the key phrases there. Legislation was introduced in the Senate Local Government & Taxation Committee today by Rexburg Senator Doug Ricks which would lower 21 month period to 15 months. Senator Ricks discussed this issue with me on our Peak Policy program in November. As Senator Ricks mentioned, a school district in Idaho Falls was able to pay off its 20-year bond in just 12 years. Again, this might seem like a good thing. But it was not necessarily what voters approved. And it also allows school districts to pass more bonds in a shorter period of time. The reform introduced today is an important step in increasing confidence in elections and providing more transparency for taxpayers when considering school construction bonds.

If additional education choice is going to come to the Gem State, it won't be originating in the Idaho House Education Committee. Today, the committee voted 9-7 to kill a bill that would have created very limited Education Savings Accounts (ESA's) in the state of Idaho. HB 289 would have allowed students from families with a gross income of less than $70,000 the opportunity to sign up for an ESA, which could be used on education expenses including tutoring, private school tuition, special needs services and more. Rep. Lance Clow wrote the legislation with tremendous safeguards and limitations. It even called for a separate allocation of funds to ensure it wouldn't be perceived as taking money away from public schools. Originally, the committee didn't even allow the bill to receive a hearing. At that time, legislators continually called the bill an "ESA voucher," even though there is no such thing. Today, the bill was heard and public testimony was allowed. Here's what I told the committee. Still, lawmakers voted against advancing the bill to the floor. One representative said it didn't comply with the state's constitutional requirements. We have written previously about why that's just not true. There are two relevant provisions of Idaho’s constitution that have been used to cast doubt upon the legality of any kind of individual credit or grant to Idaho families for education purposes. Article 9, §1 creates a duty to “establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.” Many states have similar so-called “uniformity clauses,” which establish a public system of schools, but do not make that system mandatory for the state’s students—something we now take for granted. A century ago, Oregon tried to expand its public education system by making it compulsory for virtually all students. The U.S. Supreme Court roundly rejected the attempt, stating: “The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations." In other words, children do not belong to the state, and the purpose of education is to prepare them for life, not to homogenize them. A public system is one avenue for educating and preparing children, but it is not the only avenue. Parents have a duty and a right to educate their children. Article 9, §1 creates a baseline duty for the state of Idaho, but it does not prohibit the state from promoting education through means outside of the public system. The public interest law firm Institute for Justice argues, “Uniformity Clauses were never intended to impose a limit on educational innovation and creativity in the way legislators fulfill their obligation to provide children with a basic education. Rather, they were simply intended to ensure that the public school system has certain minimal characteristics.” One could make a policy argument about why it would be preferable for the state to subsidize a public system only, but a legal argument based on Idaho’s Uniformity Clause is not likely to be successful before Idaho’s Supreme Court based on Idaho caselaw and legal precedent in other states. A similar debate just played out in West Virginia, where the constitution requires a “thorough and efficient” education system. West Virginia recently passed an education freedom law called the “Hope Scholarship.” But opponents pointed to the state constitution’s “thorough and efficient” language and said it wasn’t permitted. The West Virginia Supreme Court disagreed. From the majority’s ruling: “We find that the West Virginia Constitution does not prohibit the Legislature from enacting the Hope Scholarship Act in addition to providing for a thorough and efficient system of free schools. The Constitution allows the Legislature to do both of these things.”

Unions are not what they used to be. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has released its latest data on union membership in the United States. It shows the union membership rate is down to just 10.1% - the lowest on record. Union membership rates for 2022 in the Mountain States are not the lowest, but certainly not the highest. Luckily, Idaho is a right to work state meaning you cannot be forced to be part of a union as a condition of your employment. Still, one of the state's largest unions - the Idaho Education Association - wields tremendous power at the state capitol. Tax returns show the IEA collects almost $4 million a year in membership dues. Washington and Montana, however, are not right to work states. Not only can you be required to be part of the union (with very few opt-out provisions), but in many cases in many states, the government or workplaces can be required to collect dues from employee paychecks and distribute them to union bank accounts. The "check off clause," as it is known, exists in many union contracts. It's understandable why unions would want this provision kept in place. After all, it's much easier to simply remove the dues from a paycheck than force a worker to write a check after they already have their earnings. Idaho Representative Heather Scott has introduced a bill to prevent that from happening in Idaho. From HB 91: "The state executive, legislative, and judicial branches and any subdivision, public officer, or public employee of the state executive, legislative, or judicial branch shall be prohibited from using public funds to pay membership fees or dues to any organization unless required to do so by law or unless required to maintain professional licensure for the purposes of fulfilling and maintaining state employment." If workers want to be part of a union, that is up to them. But taxpayers are not the union's collection agency and government isn't the enforcement arm.

The statistics are eye-opening, and concerning. Only 24% of millennials in the U.S. understand basic financial principles. About half of high-schoolers say they learn about investing from social media. Fewer than half the states require high schools to teach financial literacy. The stats may change in Idaho, however, thanks to legislation that has been introduced by Rep. James Petzke. House Bill 92 would require financial literacy courses in all Idaho high schools - public and charter. Currently, Idaho requires one economics course for a high school diploma. But the Nation's Report Card on Financial Literacy says the state still has a long way to go. It recommends Idaho "needs to require high school stand-alone personal finance course and implement grade-specific K-8 financial literacy standards." Idaho received a "C" on the report card. Its neighbors in Washington and Montana received a "B" and "D" respectively. As Forbes points out, with so many Americans living paycheck to paycheck, financial literacy requirements can only help. The classes may also cause many younger Americans to think twice about taking out enormous student loans. Some remarkable stats come from states that do and do not have financial literacy requirements. Moneyrates.com divided states with the requirement versus states without it. Here are the results:

As lawmakers in Idaho, Washington and Wyoming consider numerous proposals to bring more education choice to their states, Mountain States Policy Center thought it might be helpful to have a guide of the elements that will make the program successful. As we recommended in our study Education Choice Improves Outcomes, policymakers should always focus the policy they are proposing on a simple question: does the policy allow those closest to the child the ability to make the decision? Here are the key elements to a successful education choice plan: Flexibility An education savings account should always contain maximum flexibility, to be used on tutoring, private school tuition, homeschooling, speech or occupational therapy, technology, and that which can help improve a child’s educational experience. Avoid class warfare The socioeconomic background of children shouldn’t matter – investments should be focused on educating all students. Policies should avoid separating children into economic classes. If policymakers ultimately decide to place income limits on the program, it should be indexed to inflation and should also consider the size of the family. Any limits should also have a sunset and require review by future lawmakers. Avoid enrollment caps Placing enrollment caps on any education choice program is unfair and unwise. Policymakers should avoid setting arbitrary limits. Again, if lawmakers initially choose to adopt enrollment caps, they should add a sunsetting provision to allow more students to participate in the future. Avoid prior year school requirement All students should qualify to participate in an education choice program – whether they’ve lived in a state for six months or six years. Students who currently don’t use the public school system should also qualify, as their families pay into public education just the same. Parental requirements Parents should always be required to spend the money on educational expenses and in accordance with rules and requirements set forth by the state. Most states require parents to sign a contract pledging to do so. Oversight and accountability The state should always have oversight and accountability of the program to ensure dollars are being spent wisely. An oversight board can be created and the state Attorney General and/or Treasurer can be tasked with performing random audits. Any funds used inappropriately should be immediately revoked. Funds can roll over An education choice program that includes education savings accounts should always allow funds to roll over and gain interest. Doing so can save resources for taxpayers and families. Can be used for college Policymakers should allow for any unused funds in an education savings account to be spent on in-state college tuition. This can lower the burden for families and also provide incentive to students to get a college degree locally. Furthermore, it can expand the goal of getting more students to stay and work locally. Extra help for special needs children Policymakers should consider either having a supplemental, separate ESA for special needs children, or allow extra funding in a broad ESA for special needs kids who may need extra assistance. Religious freedom No education choice option should ever require a school or parent who takes the funds to forfeit their religious beliefs. This is a violation of the Constitution and recent Supreme Court rulings.

Public charter schools in Idaho and Washington have been called the “have-nots.” Even though most are successful, they can’t pass bonds or levies for facility costs for kids. These leave many of these public schools scratching for funding to simply put a roof over the kids’ heads. I once heard a story about a local charter school that had a boiler go out in the middle of winter. Students had to stay warm with extra layers of clothes because the school couldn’t afford to pay to fix the boiler. This is an outrage and it is discriminatory against the students who use a charter school. Education shouldn’t be about your zip code or your financial status (part of the reason why education choice is so important). Luckily, there are several bills that have been introduced in both the Idaho and Washington state legislatures that could offer public charter schools and their students a lift. Senate Bill 1042 (Idaho) – Lifts the cap on program to allow well-established charter schools to obtain lower interest rates on bonds, also allows schools that serve 100% at-risk students to apply to use even if they don’t meet academic standards Senate Bill 1043 (Idaho) – Creates a revolving loan fund to help new and young public charter schools obtain lower interest rates on loans House Bill 1418 (Washington) – Allows charter schools to apply for state grants on same basis as regular public school district, also requires Superintendent of Public Instruction to distribute enrichment grants in the amount similar to public schools Terry Ryan, the CEO of the Bluum education nonprofit has spoken eloquently on this issue: Despite the funding inequities Idaho’s public charter schools are an important part of the solution to overcrowded classrooms. This fact goes largely unrecognized and unappreciated by study groups and the traditional education stakeholder groups. Over the last seven years Idaho’s public charter school sector has built 20+ school facilities for some 8,000 public school students at more than $150 million in construction costs. Some of these are brand new buildings, but others are facilities located in old department stores or other buildings that were going unused. In its research, Bluum also found ““an average-sized charter school in Idaho must operate on average with nine fewer teachers, diverting funding intended for student instruction to pay for facilities.” This graphic from the report seems to tell the entire story: The tools being proposed by lawmakers in both Washington and Idaho would go a long way toward helping charter schools and their students.

It's not that difficult. Throughout the COVID pandemic, local and state governments figured out ways to use technology to keep their meetings open and transparent. Whether it was via Zoom, GoToMeeting or any other streaming platform, we all stayed connected and open meetings were still open meetings. But just because COVID is over doesn't mean the transparency should end. It's encouraging to see this bill - House Bill 328 - introduced in the Montana state legislature. The bill would require county commissions, city and town councils, school district boards, and local health boards to record and make the audio and video available to the public within one business day after the meeting. The mandate isn't coming without funding - in fact, more than $270,000 is allocated in the bill to help local governments get the equipment they need. However, it should be noted much of this could be done with something as simple as a Zoom account for $15 per month. This legislation follows an MSPC recommendation, made here back in September. We hope to see it introduced in many other states. There is no legal requirement for government agencies in Idaho to livestream their meetings – but perhaps there should be. Families are busy. They don’t always have the time to show up to a council or government agency meeting and spend four hours sitting through a long agenda. Like it or not, we live in a world run by technology. Any government agency or elected official committed to transparency should welcome the livestreaming and recording of meetings.