April 15th has come and gone. Since it fell on a weekend, Americans have until Tuesday to submit federal tax returns. But that won't mean you're done with taxes for the year. Tax filing day should not be confused with tax freedom day. Tax freedom day is the day when Americans have earned enough money to pay their total tax bill for the year. In other words, in many states, for the first three and a half months of the year, you've worked for the government. Unfortunately, as the federal burden increase, the national tax freedom day seems to be coming later and later each year. This year, tax freedom day arrives on April 18th nationally. But tax freedom day also varies by state, as each state has its own localized tax burden. Idaho and Montana have typically enjoyed earlier tax freedom days. Washington state's tax freedom day is coming later and later. It will likely increase again next year as the full impact of the new income tax on capital gains is realized. So go ahead, enjoy getting your taxes submitted this week. In Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, you've worked long enough to pay your burden. For Washingtonians, don't fall into the trap of believing you're done working for the government.

The ink is still drying on Idaho’s new state budget, but we’re getting a closer look at where legislators decided to spend the most money. Idaho’s general fund budget increased to $5.1 billion this session, a 12% hike from the year before. Here are the top 10 allocations: 1.) Public school support - $2.698 billion (up 16.4%) Note: Over the past decade, Idaho has increased K-12 spending 106%. 2.) Division of Medicaid - $856.3 million (up 3.2%) Note: This represents the state portion of Medicaid expansion and not the total spending that is split between the federal government and the state. 3.) Colleges and Universities - $353.9 million (up 4.7%) 4.) Department of Correction - $321.7 million (up 7.5%) 5.) Department of Health and Welfare - $214 million (up 10%) 6.) Career Technical Education - $76.5 million (up 4.5%) 7.) Judicial Branch - $62.4 million (up 5.9%) 8.) Community Colleges - $60.9 million (up 7%) 9.) Idaho State Police - $51.8 million (up 21.2%) 10.) Department of Juvenile Corrections - $48.5 million (up 5.4%) While these spending increases are significant, other parts of the budget saw much larger hikes. For example, the state Board of Education’s budget increased a whopping 338.6%. The Secretary of State’s budget went up 228.4%. And the budget for the office of the Lieutenant Governor surged 44.4%. The Secretary of State’s allocation was mainly for an upgrade to the state’s election system, as Phil McGrane detailed in his original budget request. Part of the increase for the state Board of Education is allocated to the popular Empowering Parents program. But it also funds more than a dozen new, full time positions. You can read the full budget here.

When Idaho voters passed Medicaid expansion in 2018, a lot of promises were made. Few, however, have panned out. 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 promises it would be a good financial deal and lower health care costs. That hasn't happened either. The 2023 Idaho legislature's budget increases the Medicaid state spending to $856.3 million - a 25% increase from just four years ago. If the trend holds, Idaho will hit one billion dollars in Medicaid spending in the next few years. Proponents of the system claim it's a good deal because the federal government is covering so much of the actual cost. Just a few months ago, state legislators were told Idaho would have to spend more if it ended Medicaid expansion. How is that possible? It's true that, comparatively speaking, federal taxpayers cover more than state taxpayers- so limiting or ending the expansion limits or ends the federal government's funding. However, it's worth pointing out that state taxpayers are federal taxpayers too. And, judging by the federal government's current financial position, promises of federal funds might not always be there. If a bankrupt relative bought you a vehicle you couldn't afford, but said he'd make most of the payments, would you sign up for the deal? It’s not as if there were no other options. Before Medicaid expansion in Idaho, those who were eligible could join the Your Health Idaho program and get “advance premium tax credits” to help reduce their insurance costs. Medicaid coverage, on the other hand, can be extremely limiting. Not only do providers run into billing problems, but reimbursement rates are also low. Many health care providers will only take a limited number of patients. So, while citizens may have coverage, it might not mean much. Medicaid, Medicare and Private insurance acceptance rates:

The Montana Senate is now considering a bill that would offer special needs children access to Education Savings Accounts worth roughly $6,816. A hearing was held this week, allowing opponents yet another opportunity to use the same tired arguments as before. HB 393 passed the House by a vote of 66-32. This is one of several education choice bills introduced in the Treasure State so far this year, but it has the most momentum. HB 393 would allow parents who choose to sign up funds for their child that can be used on private school tuition and fees, textbooks, curriculum, tutoring, education therapies, transportation and other education related expenses. It can be a tremendously helpful tool for parents who might not have the resources they need to get their child the extra help he or she requires. One testifier called the proposal “inappropriate” and claimed it would “take money from public schools.” Another called it “anti-public schools.” A representative of the League of Women Voters claimed there was “no research” to show education choice would help improve outcomes. (Most credible, major studies have concluded that educational outcomes improve when education choice is permitted - not only for students taking advantage of education choice, but also with those who did not.) The Montana Federation of Public Employees claimed “students would be harmed” when they are allowed to take their education dollars and go someplace else. One Senator asked for an updated fiscal note to include the cost of litigation – indicating that she believed lawsuits would be filed to stop the program. Closing comments were provided by Senator Sue Vinton, the sponsor. They are a must-watch.

How much education spending will be enough? It's a fair question to ask, especially following last week's conclusion of the 2023 Idaho Legislative session. The session featured yet another double-digit increase in K-12 spending in Idaho. The public school support budget increased another 16.4%. Our Idaho Poll conducted late last year showed strong support for K-12 education spending. But the vast majority of Idahoans likely don't know how much we're actually spending - and how much it has increased. The most recent approved budget in Idaho hikes K-12 funding to $2.698 billion. The most recent enrollment numbers now show 289,480 students in Idaho's K-12 system. This means the state general fund allocation alone is increasing to $9,323 per student. That number does not include any local or federal funding, which accounts for much more. Ten years ago, Idaho was spending $1.3 billion. Over the past decade, K-12 state spending has ballooned 106.2%. Accepting a 106% increase would be easier if outcomes were also improving. So far, however, they have been stagnant. In a previous publication, we asked what amount will be sufficient and how will we know when we are spending enough? Unfortunately, these questions are never answered. There is little correlation between education spending and achievement. If spending were the key, the United States would have the best schools in the world, as the U.S. spends more than any other developed nation. It’s no longer good enough to simply say all problems would be solved if only the system had more money. States that spend the most don’t necessarily have the best outcomes, and states that spend the least don’t have the worst outcomes. The number one priority of any plan to increase education funding should be student outcomes. What is the measurement whereby we can determine if these increases will help children? What are the goals?

The Montana House has approved a bill that would offer special needs children access to Education Savings Accounts worth roughly $6,816. HB 393 passed the House by a vote of 66-32. It will now head to the Montana Senate for a hearing on Monday, April 17th. This is one of several education choice bills introduced in the Treasure State so far this year, but it has the most momentum. HB 393 would allow parents who choose to sign up funds for their child that can be used on private school tuition and fees, textbooks, curriculum, tutoring, education therapies, transportation and other education related expenses. It can be a tremendously helpful tool for parents who might not have the resources they need to get their child the extra help he or she requires. Most credible, major studies have concluded that educational outcomes improve when education choice is permitted - not only for students taking advantage of education choice, but also with those who did not. "A review of the empirical research on private school choice finds evidence that private school choice delivers some benefits to participating students—particularly in the area of educational attainment—and tends to help, albeit to a limited degree, the achievement of students who remain in public schools."​ -Peabody Journal of Education, Volume 91, Issue 4 While nearby states struggle to advance education choice, Montana seems on the verge of making it a reality.

What a difference a border can make. Washington gas prices are surging, forcing many folks in the eastern part of the state to northern Idaho for a cheaper fill-up. That means more revenue for Idaho's transportation system. The comparison in cost is more stark than ever before. Triple A says the average price for a gallon of gas in Washington is currently $4.56 per gallon. In Idaho, the price is $3.63 per gallon. There's always been a difference between Idaho and Washington prices - after all, Washington's gas tax is nearly 20 cents more per gallon. This year, however, the price difference is more extreme - especially since January. Why? What happened in January to cause the spike? Some media outlets, including this article in today's Spokesman-Review, are trying to lay the blame at OPEC and oil companies. But oil prices today are only slightly higher than they were in January. Unfortunately, the reporter makes no mention of the biggest issue that is causing prices to rise in Washington - the state's new energy taxes. Those energy taxes - which some estimates peg at about 50-cents more per gallon - started in January. That just so happens to be the time when we saw Washington's price beginning to rise. It was pretty clear that prices were going to increase as a result of the new taxes, as Todd Myers of the Washington Policy Center points out. Even Washington state officials who supported the energy taxes admitted there would be some impact. Those who live on the border with Idaho have options to cross over to fill up. But for those in central and western Washington, the pain will continue - and the evidence of what is to blame is crystal clear.

Lawmakers in Washington State are moving forward with a bill to abolish the state's requirement for non-binding advisory votes on tax increases. Senate Bill 5082 has already passed the House and the Senate and is likely to be signed by the Governor. While the advisory votes results didn't mean much to lawmakers (they were constantly ignored), they did serve as a way to inform voters throughout the Evergreen State that the financial burden of government was increasing. Oftentimes, voters would learn about what the legislature did on taxes through these votes. In Idaho this legislative session, lawmakers attempted to put an advisory vote on the ballot regarding "funding private schools." At the time, we called it a mistake. There are right and wrong ways to place questions on the ballot. In principle, advisory votes after a bill has been passed can serve a purpose - but only if they actually use the bill summary so voters are well-informed. This is what happened last year with Idaho voters were asked their thoughts about the income tax cut and education spending bill adopted by lawmakers during the special session. This advisory vote example was on complete details, not talking points. Votes on an issue that hasn't been passed by the legislative body are better-served to be binding referendums with the actual language of what is being proposed. If lawmakers want the voters to weigh in on a policy, let them truly make the decision with the actual details in a meaningful way.

The 16th edition of a state economic competitiveness index is giving Idaho and Wyoming high marks. But Washington's position continues to worsen. Montana doesn't do much better. Rich States, Poor States is authored by Dr. Arthur B. Laffer, economist Stephen Moore and Chief Economist Jonathan Williams of the American Legislative Exchange Council. The authors use 15 economic policy sections to rank how states are performing when it comes to competitiveness and growth. Overall, Utah ranked 1st followed by North Carolina, Arizona, Idaho and Oklahoma. Idaho's ranking for the past three years has continued to improve, from 11th, to 5th and now 4th best. Wyoming also improved this year, from 10th to 6th. Montana and Washington, however, rank in the lower half, at 33rd and 34th, respectively. Here's where the states rank in the different categories. Idaho Personal income tax - 34th Property tax burden - 14th Minimum wage - 1st (tied) Number of public employees per 10,000 people - 7th Debt service as a share of revenue - 4th Recently-legislated tax changes - 1st Average worker's compensation cost - 35th State liability system (tort management) - 9th Montana Personal income tax - 36th Property tax burden - 37th Minimum wage - 22nd Number of public employees per 10,000 people - 36th Debt service as a share of revenue - 10th Recently-legislated tax changes - 25th Average worker's compensation cost - 36th State liability system (tort management) - 7th Washington Personal income tax - 1st (tied) Property tax burden - 18th Minimum wage - 50th Number of public employees per 10,000 people - 21st Debt service as a share of revenue - 42nd Recently-legislated tax changes - 27th Average worker's compensation cost - 27th State liability system (tort management) - 26th Wyoming Personal income tax - 1st (tied) Property tax burden - 36th Minimum wage - 1st (tied) Number of public employees per 10,000 people - 50th Debt service as a share of revenue - 1st Recently-legislated tax changes - 21st Average worker's compensation cost - 44th State liability system (tort management) - 4th The research shows both Idaho and Montana need to work on lowering personal income tax rates and the cost of worker's comp. Wyoming, too, suffers from a high worker's comp system - the result of a state monopoly. Washington state's minimum wage puts it at a competitive disadvantage, as does its debt service.

It’s almost unbelievable. Lawmakers across our region have introduced some 4,000 new laws over the past three months. That’s more than 40 per day! Some of the legislation will directly impact you and your family, while other legislation leaves many of us scratching our heads. I mean, do we really need official state dinosaurs? While the Idaho legislative session has just about wrapped up (likely Thursday), Montana and Washington lawmakers still have a ways to go. The volume of new laws can be overwhelming to the average citizen watching from afar. Heck, it can be overwhelming to the average lawmaker who is responsible for reading through the bills and understanding the issues. Not every bill will make it across the finish line, but each piece of legislation does take time, effort, and yes money to be introduced, heard, and either discarded or advanced. In Idaho, lawmakers this year introduced 635 bills - pretty much on par with recent history. Montana's legislative session still has about a month to go, and already legislators have surpassed previous years. Montana's legislature meets only every other year, but the trend is up. In Washington, lawmakers meet every year, but odd-numbered years are budget writing years and are therefore longer sessions. While the latest numbers are low (comparatively speaking), they will increase when lawmakers reconvene in January of 2024. What does it all mean? That might depend on your political point of view. Some states actually limit the volume - and Montana is one of those states. But lawmakers always have a way to get around those restrictions if they desire.

The legislative sessions in Washington and Idaho have wrapped up with polar opposite decisions regarding government spending. In Idaho, lawmakers adjourned on April 6th with a general fund budget of $5.1 billion. That is a nearly 8% increase from last year's $4.6 billion budget and an 83% increase in the past decade. In Washington, lawmakers passed a nearly 9% increase in state spending - finishing with a final product of nearly $70 billion. Over the past decade, the Washington State budget has increased 124%. Some of the differences can be attributed to population, as Washington is the larger state. But on a per-capita (or per person basis), Washington is spending a boatload more. In fact, almost four times as much. More analysis in the coming days.

They said it wouldn’t happen. It only took a few weeks to prove they were wrong. Following the Washington State Supreme Court’s ruling on a new state income tax, some Washington state Legislators are already moving to expand it to more people, and more income. The justices ruled 7-2 in March that a capital gains income tax wasn’t an income tax because legislators called it an “excise tax.” Every other state in the union – along with the IRS – labels a capital gains tax an income tax. But because Washington’s constitution has limitations on taxing property – and because previous courts have ruled that your income is your property – the court sought a different way to uphold the tax. Because legislators called it an “excise” tax, the court signed off. Now, legislators are moving quickly to expand the new “excise” tax on other sources of income. SB 5767 in the Washington state Legislature seeks to “fund health care access by imposing an excise tax on the annual compensation paid to certain highly compensated hospital employees.” In other words, an income tax. Just don’t call it an income tax. How long will it be until there's a bill targeting your job with an income tax that's labeled an "excise tax?" The court’s ruling is already causing damage in the state’s economy. Some businesses have announced they are moving their headquarters out of the state. We wrote earlier this year how Montana and Idaho should move to adopt lower income tax rates to lure some Washington businesses fed up with the state’s taxing climate. While the Idaho legislative session ends this week, Montana’s won’t wrap up until May. There is still time.

The 2023 Idaho legislative session is ready to adjourn with barely any movement on advancing education choice options for families. While states including Florida, Iowa, Arkansas, Utah and Arizona have expanded choice to improve outcomes, Idaho seems to be stuck in neutral. It’s certainly not for lack of trying. An early-session Senate bill that would have provided universal Education Savings Accounts (ESA) for all Idaho families passed in committee but failed on the floor. An ESA proposal complete with income limitations was introduced in the House. The House Education committee wouldn’t even give it a hearing. The sponsor came back with another version that was finally granted a hearing in that same committee – but was then shot down before it could get to the floor. Members in both the House and Senate worked on a bill to expand the state’s popular Empowering Parents program to include a small pilot for just 2,000 students – less than 1% of the state’s total student population. It was a temporary trial with an expiration date. It passed the Senate but, despite having nearly every limitation that opponents had asked for, didn’t have the votes in the House Education committee. To top it all off, the House Education committee actually passed a bill to place an incomplete advisory question about “funding private schools” on the ballot in 2024. When that proposal got to the House floor, it was defeated providing the opportunity for the legislature to continue a more robust debate in the future. If you asked all 105 legislators to explain education choice, you might get 105 different answers. Throughout the session, a lot of bizarre and inaccurate things were said. CLAIM: These are “ESA vouchers.” REALITY: There is no such thing. ESA’s allows parents to use a portion of state funding on a variety of education services. Yes, it can include private school tuition, but it can also include tutoring, special needs services, curriculum, mental health treatment and much more - so long as it is for an educational purpose. CLAIM: Private or specialty school would get taxpayer funding while rejecting students. REALITY: If that private or specialty school were to receive any of the funding, the student would have to be accepted. The state is not going to just start issuing checks to private schools. CLAIM: Approving ESA’s would reduce public school funding. REALITY: In reality, per-student funding would likely increase. Several proposals required 20% of a student’s allocation to stay in the school district in which they lived. The Empowering Parents program was a separate budget item altogether. CLAIM: 95% of homeschooling students will sign up. REALITY: There’s no evidence from other states of numbers ever reaching that high. CLAIM: You can only support public education or education choice. REALITY: They work hand-in-hand and education choice often supplements public schooling. CLAIM: The Heritage Foundation says Idaho already has enough education choice. REALITY: Idaho ranked 20th on education choice options behind Utah & Montana and barely ahead of Illinois. This legislative session proves the entire conversation in Idaho surrounding education choice needs a major reset – and, ironically, better education about proposals. The advancement of education choice in Idaho is only harmed by those who have relentlessly attacked and sought to close all public schools. Doing so would only take away an option at a time when we need many more options. Montana, Wyoming and Washington need similar resets - as ESA programs ran into a brick wall in those states as well. This issue is not going away. If Idaho legislators had known they were not going to be successful with any bill, they could have opted for an interim legislative study on existing ESA programs across the country. This could have been done by an unbiased source – perhaps the state Controller or Legislative Audit Division – and could have been made available by the time the next session begins. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. The conversation will continue now, and Mountain States Policy Center will do our part by providing research and recommendations on what has worked in other states. We’ll even host a special event in Boise over the summer to brainstorm options and highlight areas of success and policies to avoid. We have a unique opportunity to put political divisions aside and create a unique Idaho-centered plan. The goal needs to be the education of Idaho’s children so that they can be productive citizens and workers and lead enriched lives. If more education choice can help improve the educational outcomes of just one child, it’s worth trying.

The people of the Treasure State may soon stop electing state Supreme Court justices. Montana's House Judiciary Committee this week advanced HB 915 - a proposed constitutional amendment that would end elections for Supreme Court justices and leave the process up to appointment by the Governor. There is not necessarily a right or wrong way for judges to be selected. In fact, there are 25 different selection systems. Montana, Idaho and Washington are three of just 13 states that elect judges in non-partisan elections. But elections for judges - specifically Supreme Court justices - have always been uncomfortable for many voters who many times leave the decision blank because of a lack of knowledge about the candidates. A process of appointments would leave the decision with the executive branch, and give voters an opportunity to hold that office holder accountable if they don't like the results. Constitutional amendments in Montana require a two-thirds vote in both chambers in order to be advanced to voters. If the legislature and voters ultimately decide to approve the change, the last Montana Supreme Court elections would be held in 2024, and gubernatorial appointments would begin in 2025.

The Idaho House today turned down an effort to change the process for gathering signatures for initiatives. The majority voted in favor of SJR 101a, but it needed a two-thirds vote to appear before voters as a constitutional amendment. Two-thirds of the Idaho Senate had already given approval to the change which would have required 6% of legal voters in every legislative district in the state sign on to an initiative for it to go before voters. The current threshold is 6% in half of the state's legislative districts. The legislation is similar to a bill that was passed in 2021 making a similar change. The difference, this time, is that lawmakers are seeking to pass the change via a constitutional amendment instead of just a standard bill. Proponents of the amendment say it is about making the participation in the initiative process more representative of the entire state. The distribution threshold, as it's called, is not necessarily unusual as we reported earlier. Massachusetts requires that no more than 25% of signatures come from any one county. Utah has requirements spreading the initiative requirements out among legislative districts. Policymakers should always be careful about changing the right of citizens to make law through an initiative process. If this particular amendment is rejected by voters, lawmakers may want to consider a variation of the state of Nevada's requirements. In order for statutory initiatives to pass in Nevada, a single general election vote in favor is needed. But for constitutional amendments, a majority of voters is needed in two consecutive elections. A referendum - or veto of the legislature's work - would still take just one majority vote. But if citizens choose to bypass the legislature and create their own laws, a higher threshold could be adopted requiring two affirmative votes of the people.

Both the Idaho House and the Idaho Senate have voted to override Governor Brad Little's veto of HB 292 - a major property tax reduction package. The bill now becomes law. Governor Little vetoed the legislation (HB 292) on Monday. He said he was concerned that the bill was a “hodgepodge.” Among the many parts of the legislation, there was the removal of March school bond and levy elections. The Governor said he was also concerned about how the bill would impact transportation projects around the state. Some of those issues were resolved. For example, legislators unanimously passed a trailer bill that sought to clarify funding of transportation projects. The tax relief going forward is broken down into three years: 1st year - $225 to $375 million 2nd year - $120 to $270 million 3rd year - $150 to $300 million Most of the relief in the first year comes from the state's general fund surplus. In the second year, 4.5% of what the state collects from sales taxes would be diverted to lower property taxes via a credit. Finally, the bill increases the number of people who would qualify for the state's property tax relief program (also known as the "circuit breaker.") Homeowners will know where the reductions come from. The legislation says property tax bills will indicate the savings with text that reads “tax relief appropriated by the Legislature.” The measure also removes the March date that school districts can use for elections, meaning that elections can only be held in May, August and November. Part of the legislation also distributes money from the state to school districts for the purposes of lowering bond and levy burdens. 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). 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 the taxpayers who keep approving new local tax measures.

In a season when farmers and ranchers expect to begin spring groundwork and planting, projects seem slow to start. The 2022-2023 winter has unexpectedly extended into the spring, bringing record levels of snowpack to the mountain states. As farmers work around this appreciated inconvenience, many more storms are still in the forecast, but sufficient water is likely to be available this year for the growing season. At the close of the 2022 irrigation season, many reservoirs had once again reached almost record-breaking lows. Record-low reservoir carryover from 2021 and poor snow accumulation through February and March made for negative 2022 outlooks. The mountain states were rescued from extreme drought conditions by late rain in April and May 2022. Unfortunately, normal usage and extreme late summer temperatures once again exhausted the water supply. With the forecasted second consecutive La Nina winter in 2022-23, sources predicted the drought would only worsen based on historical trends. Typically, Idaho basins have lower snowpack at the end of a second La Nina year. Diverting from historical trends, snow water equivalent has reached record high levels across the mountain states. Basins throughout Utah recently broke the historical record of SNOTEL reporting stations, with the record beginning when the stations started reporting in 1980. Southern Idaho regions are also well above average at 140% and northern regions still close to average. Montana, Wyoming, and Washington are all at or above average in most of the reporting snow basins. Water supply is increasing as snowmelt makes its way into the reservoirs. Though reservoirs are slightly under charged compared to last year’s levels at this time, the snow melt is likely to raise these levels well above 2022. However, temperature fluctuations will greatly influence the amount of water that makes it to these reservoirs. If temperatures suddenly rise and snow quickly melts and begins to flow downhill, more water will make it to the reservoir. However, if temperatures change between warm and back to freezing, more water will be absorbed into the soil and not make its way to the dams. Idaho reservoirs still range from 24 to 62% of normal and Utah’s reservoirs are more than 10% lower than last year at this time. Nearby reservoirs in Eastern Oregon, follow similar trends with larger storage sites like Owyhee reaching 31% on March 28th, 2023 but nearby Warm Springs has only reached 13%. Irrigation district managers state that the year has the potential to have good water allotments, but the approaching snow melt leaves a lot to chance. Despite these snowy days of March, irrigation districts are moving forward with water disbursement. Irrigation canals will be filling in the coming weeks, with the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District (NMID) announcing April 5th as a startup date.[12] Other canals across the mountain states are likely to see water deliveries begin in mid-April. The actual water available to the mountain states remains to be seen as winter weather eventually ends and the spring snow melt fills the reservoirs. For farmers, communities, and homeowners the availability of water after years of drought is a promise that hopefully isn’t too good to be true.

The Idaho House and Senate worked throughout the session on a bill that would provide major property tax relief to the citizens of the state. It has been one of the major topics of discussion since January – and before. The final product was indeed large and difficult to understand. But it was a compromise, and it received overwhelming approval in both chambers. Governor Brad Little, however, vetoed the legislation (HB 292) on Monday. He was concerned that the bill was a “hodgepodge.” Among the many parts of the legislation, there was the removal of March school bond and levy elections. The Governor said he was also concerned about how the bill would impact transportation projects around the state. Both chambers had a veto-proof majority vote in favor of the legislation – 63-7 in the House and 32-3 in the Senate. That’s why it was somewhat surprising to see such furious action on Monday afternoon in the state Senate to drop the legislation altogether. Instead, lawmakers removed many of the Governor’s objections by placing new language in House Bill 198, and immediately took up the legislation on the Senate floor. Few legislators actually had the chance to read through the bill and consider the changes. The public, certainly, did not have a chance to read the legislation either. Nevertheless, it passed 32-3. Monday’s action is a stark reminder about the need for legislators to be further committed to transparency. It has not been unusual this legislative session to see public hearings with little notice, public hearing times changed at the last moment, and now this. It is understandable that legislators feel pressure to get their work done, but it cannot come at the expense of transparency and meaningful involvement from the citizens of the state. How can legislators increase transparency? Here are a few recommendations that were proposed in other states that are worth considering: All bills introduced, and any proposed substitute, striking amendment, or conference committee report thereon, must be made publicly available to the members of the legislature and the public at least 72 hours before the bill is eligible for a public hearing, legislative action, or to be voted on by the senate or the house of representatives. At least 72 hours notice must be given of all public hearings held by any legislative committee. Such notice shall contain the date, time, and place of the hearing together with the title and number of each bill, or identification of the subject matter, to be considered at the hearing. No bill is eligible for legislative action of any kind unless it has first been subject to a public hearing in the same session of consideration. No bill is eligible for legislative action on the floor of either the senate or house of representatives until for 48 hours after it has been placed on the floor calendar. No bill is eligible for final passage in either house of the legislature unless copies of the bill, in the final form to be passed, have been made available to the members of that house of the legislature and the public for at least 24 hours. It is important to remember that under Idaho’s constitution “all political power is inherent in the people.” Moving at the speed of light may be good for space travel but it makes for a poor public process when enacting laws. Citizens, the media, and lawmakers themselves must have adequate time to review, understand, and perfect laws before they are adopted. UPDATE (3/28): The Idaho House rejected the new Senate bill on Tuesday morning.

In Idaho, lawmakers are about ready to wrap up business. Probably. Maybe. While the legislative session is supposed to last 75-90 days, technically there is no time limit on how long legislators could be in Boise. If lawmakers don't finish a few outstanding budgets, they could stay in session for longer. In Washington, there is a time limit - 105 days during odd numbered years. But while the regular session ends then, lawmakers in Olympia have often extended into special sessions. Montana lawmakers only meet every other year - for 90 business days - meaning they don't adjourn until mid-May. Idaho is one of the small number of states that doesn't have a time limit on sessions (Illinois, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Michigan are the others). Occasionally, that means longer sessions. In 2021, for example, Idaho legislators were officially in session from January until November as lawmakers grappled with COVID shutdowns and emergency powers. While the Senate had finished its work in the Spring, the House reconvened in the Fall and officially gaveled the session to a close. The session totaled 311 days. Here are the other dates of adjournment in Idaho over the past 20 years. 2022 - Adjourned March 31st 2021 - Adjourned November 17th 2020 - Adjourned March 20th 2019 - Adjourned April 11th 2018 - Adjourned March 28th 2017 - Adjourned March 29th 2016 - Adjourned March 25th 2015 - Adjourned April 11th 2014 - Adjourned March 20th 2013 - Adjourned April 4th 2012 - Adjourned March 29th 2011 - Adjourned April 7th 2010 - Adjourned March 29th 2009 - Adjourned May 8th 2008 - Adjourned April 2nd 2007 - Adjourned March 30th 2006 - Adjourned April 11th 2005 - Adjourned April 6th 2004 - Adjourned March 20th 2003 - Adjourned May 3rd 2002 - Adjourned March 15th 2001 - Adjourned March 30th Most states have legislative limits are set by the constitution, or other rules and procedures. Should there be a limit to Idaho's session? Perhaps. A regular calendar can help focus lawmakers time for debate and provide citizens a window in which they need to engage. However, deadlines also can lead to a rush of legislation at the last minute - so it would be critical to have transparency requirements built in.

The Montana Senate today signed off on a bill to provide Education Savings Accounts for special needs children. The vote was 26-24 on second reading. The final tally was 28-22. HB 393 had already passed the House by a vote of 66-32. HB 393 would allow parents who choose to sign up funds (roughly $6,800) for their child that can be used on private school tuition and fees, textbooks, curriculum, tutoring, education therapies, transportation and other education related expenses. It can be a tremendously helpful tool for parents who might not have the resources they need to get their child the extra help he or she requires. The bill now goes to Governor Gianforte for his signature. Senator Sue Vinton, the sponsor, deserves major credit here. At a recent hearing, opponents used the same tired arguments that they have tried in other states. Luckily for special needs children, the arguments were not successful. As we have previously written, education choice can be incredibly successful for children who take advantage, as well as those who remain in the typical K-12 setting. Now, Idaho, Washington and Wyoming need to try to advance this ball down field. While states including Florida, Iowa, Arkansas, Utah, Arizona and now Montana have expanded choice to improve outcomes, many other states seem to be stuck in neutral.