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.

He's the top Republican in Washington, D.C. on matters of foreign policy - and he's the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee. Idaho Senator Jim Risch joined us at our inaugural Spring Dinner in Coeur d'Alene last week. Senator Risch is one of the few politicians who has experience as a legislator, as a Governor and now a member of Congress. Our conversation was entertaining and educational, covering everything from China, to Ukraine, education and elections.

It appears Montana will soon join 45 other states in permitting public charter schools. Two bills have passed this legislative session that seek to lift the state's ban. HB 562, introduced by Rep. Sue Vinton, is the more expansive option. Meantime, HB 549, introduced by Rep. Fred Anderson, has also passed both chambers. Montana has been an outlier when it comes to charter schools. While other states have sought to expand education choice options, Montana children have had to wait. Charter schools are public schools that receive public funds. They often will operate under a contract with a state or local school district. But charter school laws vary from state to state. While Washington, for example, allows public charter schools, the law is so limiting that it produces an artificial cap on the number of students who can attend. Meantime, states like Arizona, Florida and Massachusetts have hundreds of charter schools. Allowing parents more options shouldn't be a controversial idea. Montanans have waited long enough for public charter schools. The time to make it a reality is now.

The exodus from Washington state may just be getting started. Today, the Washington State Supreme Court upheld the state's new 7% income tax on capital gains - essentially claiming the income tax wasn't an income tax because the legislature didn't call it that. Every other state and the IRS call a capital gains tax an income tax, as our friends at the Washington Policy Center point out. Jared Walczak at the Tax Foundation calls the ruling "ludicrous." The justices seemed to focus more on the political arguments rather than the actual law. Consider this excerpt: The ruling takes away one of the last economic advantages Washington had over other states. While Idaho and Montana have sought to lower their income tax burdens, Washington has done everything possible to create a new income tax - and it has finally succeeded. Business leaders who had chosen Washington state for its tax climate say just the talk of a new income tax is hurting. Tanium CEO Orion Hindawi says: “This is becoming a huge PR issue for Washington state even though nothing has substantively changed. It’s not just who are we losing who’s not coming, it’s also who are we losing who's currently here that won’t stay. People need to be fully aware, there are a lot of people who currently call themselves Seattle residents or Washington residents, who don’t have to be tomorrow.” In our previous study recommending income tax triggers to lower rates in Montana and Idaho, we mentioned the enormous opportunity that now exists for nearby states to attract major businesses frustrated with Washington's new income tax. We recommended state policymakers show their commitment to lowering the income tax rates in their states. That has clearly already begun. In 2010, former Idaho Governor Butch Otter invited businesses to come to Idaho following the implementation of another controversial tax. Thirteen years later, maybe it's appropriate for Governors Little and Gianforte to pick up a pen and write again.

It just makes sense... or is it cents? Idaho's legislature has passed - and Governor Brad Little has signed - House Bill 92, which requires financial literacy courses in all Idaho high schools - public and charter. Before this legislation, Idaho required an economics course for a high school diploma. But the Nation's Report Card on Financial Literacy said the state still had a long way to go. It recommended 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. The legislation passed this session is was led by Rep. James Petzke and Superintendent of Public Instruction Debbie Critchfield. 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.

When is a farm too big? That is the question in front of the Oregon Legislature with Senate Bill 85. Would 2,500 cows or 125,000 chickens qualify as an operation that is too large? In Oregon it might be the new threshold. Senate Bill 85, initially sought to study the impact of confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) on the state. A recent amendment attached a moratorium on all new Tier 2 CAFO permits for 8 years and until the study is complete. Operations needing a Tier 2 permit are larger than 2,500 cows or 125,000 chickens. An additional amendment, narrows the moratorium to poultry operations and is set for a postponed work session on March 27th. In an age, where farms have lived or died by the mantra, “Get big or get out,” the new cap is a bitter pill to swallow. Many farms have expanded in order to continue their businesses and meet the rising costs of inputs and labor, taxes, and regulatory pressure. Even some smaller farms oppose SB 85, fearing the moratorium will expand to include smaller operations in the future. In Oregon, only 14 of the 200 large dairies are larger than 2,500 cows and only 4 of the 26 large chicken plants produce more than 125,000 chickens. However, existing operations would struggle to grow in their communities and that was stated during the hearing in early March. From Eastern Oregon, State Senator Lynn Findley, R-Vale, shared that SB 85 poses an economic threat to his district because 20% of the state’s industrial animal operations are located in Malheur County. These large operations are villainized as industrial or factory farms, but other descriptors are more appropriate. Many are family farms, local employers, and community members. However, for many successful farm families, surviving has required growth into large operations. Many areas of Oregon benefit from the economic stimulus brought by CAFOs, and easily justify the negative externalities that may appear. Oregon Farm Bureau President Greg Addington testified, “We have slowly forced agricultural operations to get larger to survive. Yet now we're here talking about limiting how big a farm can get or how many animals we think are appropriate. It's a slippery slope in my opinion.” Other farmers fervently support SB 85, with Farmers Against Foster Farms leading the charge due to a local issue. An influx of prospective poultry operations in the western Oregon town of Scio, has fueled community opposition against “Industrial Chicken Factories.” J-S Ranch has proposed 12 barns to house their annual production of 3.4 million chickens, Evergreen Ranch will produce 4.5 million chickens per year, and Randy Hiday has a similar proposal. Local resentment and frustration has leaked into the state-level government to resolve the issue. Under current law, local communities and neighbors cannot oppose CAFO permits. Other use-permits and zoning changes include local input, but CAFOs are a state-issued permit with no local opinion sought. A CAFO permit in the state of Oregon is approved and issued by the Oregon Department of Agriculture. A working group convened in the Fall of 2022 identified the need for county-level governments and communities to have a say on CAFO permits and conditions. The cannabis management at the local level was presented as an example to be followed. Community input means that local knowledge of resources is included in the discussion including knowledge of water and labor availability. 100 cows or 10,000 cows, which operation is too big? The state legislature voting with a blanket answer to this question is unfair to farmers and communities. Farmers need to be able to decide the best path forward for their operation without being unfairly regulated by general state-level restrictions. Additionally, communities need to be able to have a voice on the future of their neighborhoods. Local governments have a better chance of recognizing the role agriculture can play in their hometowns for good (as in the case of Malheur County) or maybe for not (as is stated by many citizens in Scio). Let local communities have a voice that works with and for local farmers, and avoid additional state regulations.

Today, the Idaho House shot down a proposal to place a misleading and controversial advisory question on the 2024 general election ballot. The legislation - HB 339 - would have asked voters “should the state of Idaho direct or appropriate public tax dollars to private schools?” Originally, the language said "divert." The question was pretty simplistic – and an incomplete picture to paint for voters about education choice options. Most of the Idaho legislative session has featured debates about Education Savings Accounts. An ESA allows parents to use a portion of state funding on a variety of education services. Yes, it can include private school tuition, but it can also include tutoring, special needs services, curriculum, mental health treatment and much more - so long as it is for an educational purpose. So why not a ballot measure about tutoring, or special needs services, curriculum or mental health treatment? Maybe there should be a question about funding students, instead of funding a system? Most of the proposals have suggested creating a separate budget item to fund an ESA. And, if approved, the per-student funding in public schools would likely increase, as proposals have included 20% of a student’s funds being put into the local school district – even if students don’t go there. Should we ask whether voters want to increase the per-student funding – without any context? The way forward in the final days of the legislative session in Idaho is the limited expansion of the state's empowering parents program, via SB 1161. Legislators could also opt for an interim legislative study on existing ESA programs across the country. This could be done by an unbiased source – perhaps the state Controller or Legislative Audit Division – and could be available by the time the next session begins. Lawmakers could make their request specific – getting much-needed answers to questions that could determine a way forward for education choice in Idaho.

Voters in Montana could soon see a flurry of state constitutional amendments on their ballots. Lawmakers have proposed more than 50 constitutional changes, but it's likely when all is said and done less than a dozen will be put forward to voters. Still, nearly a dozen is significant. House Bill 551 changes the state's constitutional right to bear arms by selecting a current section of the state constitution that deals with concealed weapons. There's also House Bill 372, which would add a constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap. Some of the more controversial proposals deal with the state Supreme Court. One deals with term limits for public officials and judges. Another proposal is an amendment to change the way Montana's Supreme Court justices are chosen. Rather than a statewide election, they would be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. 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. We will know in just a few weeks which constitutional amendments have a chance of actually making it to the ballot. The next deadline is the first week of April.

The Idaho House today voted down the state's $4,691,777,000 Medicaid budget. House Bill 334 failed in a 34-36 vote. The rejection is not necessarily a huge surprise. The nearly $4.7 billion proposal is about a 17% increase from the previous year. While most of that comes from the federal government, the state portion continues to grow which is giving some legislators heartburn. It's been five years now since Idaho voters approved a ballot measure adopting Medicaid expansion. As we've previously written, the promises of the expansion went out the window a long time ago. The latest numbers show enrollment is more than double the projection - more than 1 in 4 Idahoans are now enrolled. There were also at least 83,000 ineligible enrollees reported in January 2021. These enrollees do not meet traditional eligibility standards, but state officials are unable to remove them from the program because of the congressional handcuffs. 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. In the last legislative session, legislators increased the state’s Medicaid budget. And it’s also now the state’s largest agency budget. The House Health and Welfare Committee has made a recommendation that Medicaid expansion stay in place, at least for now. The committee said it had "serious concerns" about the program at the present time, including the “unsustainability of the current increased budget request.” So what should have been done? We laid out some ideas here, courtesy of the Foundation for Government Accountability. One of the recommendations was to remove previously ineligible enrollees. It appears at least that part is being addressed and the timeline to do it is being moved up. And re-evaluating the program again in 2025 is also a good thing. In addition to concerns about the cost of the program, Medicaid coverage can be extremely limiting. Not only do providers run into billing problems, but reimbursement rates are also extremely low. Many health care providers will only take a limited number of patients. So, while citizens may have coverage, it might not mean much. The budget now goes back to the Idaho Legislature's Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee.

The Idaho Senate has followed the House and passed a major property tax cut bill. It may be short term relief, but questions remain about the long term fix. Lawmakers admitted compromises had to be made, and they didn't necessarily like everything in the bill. "This is a merging of two ideas," Senator Doug Ricks said before the 32-3 vote. "It hasn't been an easy process to negotiate. This will be the largest property tax relief in Idaho state history." The bill will provide immediate relief. Sen. Ricks says the average property tax bill will see 15-20% savings. HB 292 is broken into three years: 2023 - Up to $355,000,000 2024 - Up to $272,000,000 2025 - Up to $332,000,000 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 school 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.