The 2025 legislative session may go down as one of Idaho's most significant. Legislators adjourned Friday afternoon, 89 days after they kicked off the session on a foggy, cold January morning in Boise. Nearly 800 bills later, the gavel finally came down. From a free market perspective, Idahoans did quite well. Legislators adopted more than $400 million in tax reductions, including an MSPC recommendation to lower the state's income tax and increase the state's grocery tax rebate.   In total, lawmakers approved: Income tax reduction - $253 million State funds for local property tax relief - $100 million Grocery tax rebate increase - $50 million Along with these important taxpayer savings, many of MSPC's other policy recommendations were acted on this year. On December 17, we posted our policy wish list for lawmakers to consider during the 2025 Legislative session. Several of our recommendations were enacted, including: Reform the ballot fiscal impact  statement process - ( SB 1117 ) Don’t expand the Hospital 340B program without reforms first - ( HB 136 ) Consider reasonable Medicaid work requirements - ( HB 345 ) Expand options for students and families with enhanced education choice opportunities  by adopting an education choice tax credit - ( HB 93 ) The education choice tax credit victory is likely the most significant for Idaho families and children. MSPC helped kick off session on January 6th with an education choice policy forum at the state capitol featuring former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey. At the event, legislators announced plans to introduce what became known as H93 - an education choice tax credit. After much public testimony and input, both chambers passed and the Governor signed the legislation, which provides a $5,000 tax credit to qualifying families for educational expenses  including private school tuition. Special needs students can qualify for $7,500 tax credits.   The policy change - a Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) recommendation based on years of research - was sponsored by Senators Lori Den Hartog and Scott Grow, and Representatives Wendy Horman and Jason Monks. Idaho now joins the dozens of other states with expanded choice options. MSPC researchers were also invited to testify on other policies. Along with the above-mentioned bills, we provided analysis to lawmakers on: Broadband enhancements - HB 180 Child care licensing reform - HB 243 Student-centered funding - S1096 Public access to records - HB 253 "We appreciate the work of all legislators, who take time away from family and community to serve the people's interests," MSPC President Chris Cargill said Friday. "We hope they can now get some rest."

If you’re a homeowner trying to navigate short-term rental laws in the Pacific Northwest, your experience will vary wildly depending on which state or county you live in. In an encouraging display of free market principles, Idaho lawmakers started an important conversation by introducing a pair of bills — SB 1162  and SB 1163 —that would prevent local governments from targeting and punishing homeowners who choose to rent out their properties on a short-term basis, generally defined as units rented for less than 30 days. Though not adopted this year, Idaho lawmakers are potentially willing in the future to recognize and support short-term rentals as valuable sources of tourism revenue and economic growth. Meanwhile, Washington legislators are hard at work creating scapegoats instead of solutions. Rather than confront the genuine causes of housing shortages that fall within their control , like restrictive zoning laws, environmental regulations, and onerous labor and permitting requirements, Washington lawmakers have chosen to target homeowners who offer short-term rentals.   SB 5576  originally proposed a statewide 6 percent excise tax on short-term rental income. After significant pushback from property owners concerned about the negative economic impacts, the proposed tax was revised to a maximum of 4 percent and shifts the taxing authority to local governments. This move isn’t generosity—it’s political strategy. Like all new taxes, legislators sometimes lower the rate and narrow the base to get around opposition. Once in place, the tax can easily be expanded or increased. Predictably, hotels are exempt, leaving only single-family rentals to bear the new tax burden. Washington’s complex network of short-term rental regulations has expanded significantly in recent years. Owners must now carry at least $1 million in liability insurance, obtain a state business license, and navigate additional licensing requirements at the city or county levels. This is where things get problematic: some counties impose strict caps on the number of short-term rentals allowed, effectively creating government-sanctioned monopolies where early entrants gain exclusive benefits. Other localities bury property owners in layers of regulation—multiple permits from different agencies, annual inspections, hefty fees, extensive safety checklists, and long approval times that can stretch into years. For local governments, cumbersome bureaucracy becomes an effective alternative to an outright ban. Local governments’ eagerness to aggressively target, tax, and restrict the rights of short-term rental property owners highlights exactly why Idaho’s proposed bills are so important. Property rights aren’t a policy detail; they’re the backbone of a free society . Or as John Adams put it , “ The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” Short-term rentals are often scapegoated  by policymakers looking to deflect culpability for their own failed housing policies. From Miami  to Los Angeles , local governments frequently champion harsh restrictions and taxes on short-term rentals under the guise of addressing housing shortages. Yet these same officials consistently ignore the bigger factors driving housing affordability, such as input and labor costs, restrictive local zoning codes, burdensome environmental review processes, and overly complex building permit procedures. It is wrong to blame a small subset of citizens as the cause of a shortage, where multiple economic and political factors are in play. Lawmakers also rarely pause to consider why property owners are increasingly opting for short-term rentals over long-term leases. The answer often lies in state laws that heavily favor tenants, making eviction of problematic renters costly and complicated. Landlords facing capped rents, limited security deposits, and stringent eviction regulations naturally prefer the flexibility and less regulatory hassle of short-term rentals. Local governments might be best suited to handle many community-specific issues, but there must be clear limits when they start infringing upon fundamental property rights. Local governments, often influenced by vocal minorities, should be restricted from targeting property owners with punitive measures and heavy-handed regulation. Idaho’s approach looking to establish statewide standards and protections would ensure a predictable regulatory environment. Property owners gain assurance that their rights won’t change dramatically from county to county. Washington’s patchwork, by contrast, creates an uncertain and hostile environment that discourages investment, reduces housing supply, and ultimately harms property owners and the local economy. One state is trying to solve the problem. The other is just pointing fingers. Property rights form the bedrock of American economic freedom. Idaho’s legislators deserve praise for understanding these rights, while Washington’s approach of blaming and punishing property owners for decades of legislative policy failures should be rejected.  The path to affordable housing isn’t more government interference—it’s respecting the rights of the homeowners who make the housing market work.

Recognizing that Montana imposes the region's highest income tax rate, state officials are looking to increase economic competitiveness and provide taxpayer relief this session with additional income tax cuts. How much, however, is in question. Here are some of the current top regional income tax rates: Montana - 5.9% Idaho - 5.3% ( reduced this year ) Utah – 4.55% Colorado – 4.25% (temporary – capped at 4.40%) North Dakota – 2.5% Nevada/South Dakota/Washington/Wyoming – No personal income tax (though Washington does have a standalone 7% capital gains income tax) Understanding the lack of competitiveness that comes from having the highest regional income tax rate, Governor Gianforte kicked off the 2025 Legislative Session by proposing an income tax rate reduction from 5.9% to 4.9%. Governor Gianforte noted : “As I meet with Montanans in every corner of our state, I hear loud and clear: tax relief is a priority. That’s why we’ve proposed to cut taxes again this session, to once again deliver the largest tax cut in state history. Our tax cuts will let Montanans keep more of what they earn, help folks navigate the nationwide affordability crisis, and create a more prosperous future for our state and people.” While a major income tax reduction effort sailed smoothly in neighboring Idaho this year, the waters are getting choppier than expected in Montana. As reported by the Montana Free Press  on April 2: “The Montana Senate Taxation Committee voted down two major tax bills backed by Gov. Greg Gianforte Wednesday, killing a measure that would have cut a full percentage point off the state’s primary income tax rate and another that would have increased property taxes on second homes as part of efforts to lower homeowner tax bills.” Governor Gianforte responded saying : “I fundamentally believe Montanans sent policymakers to Helena to address the challenges they face. Our focus remains on delivering meaningful solutions to those challenges: cutting taxes, creating a high-quality education system, and standing up for the most fundamental responsibility of government – to keep our people safe . . . Now there are a lot of proposals out there about how to reduce income taxes this session. Some only benefit some taxpayers. Our proposal benefits Montanans at every income level, just like our past proposals.” As mentioned by Governor Gianforte, there are several income tax reduction bills in play this year:   SB 323 : Governor’s proposals to reduce the top income tax from 5.9% to 4.9% and expand the low-income tax credit. Approximately $300 million in taxpayer savings. SB 203 : Raises income tax threshold so that more qualify for lower rate (Montana has a split rate of 5.9% and 4.7%). Approximately $230 million in taxpayer savings. SB 546 : Creating a targeted tax credit for low-income. Approximately $200 million in taxpayer savings. HB 337 : Reducing the top rate to 5.65% and increasing the income threshold. Approximately $260 million in taxpayer savings.   As this income tax reduction debate continues in Montana, other states are looking to phase out their income taxes entirely. According to the Associated Press : “About 45 years have passed since a U.S. state last eliminated its income tax on wages and salaries. But with recent actions in Mississippi and Kentucky, two states now are on a path to do so, if their economies keep growing . . . Some other states also are pushing to repeal income taxes. The Oklahoma House passed legislation in March that would gradually cut the personal income tax rate to zero if revenue growth benchmarks are met. That bill now is in the Senate. New Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe, a Republican, also wants to phase out the income tax. The House and Senate have advanced legislation that would take an incremental step by exempting capital gains income from taxes.” When the final gavel sounds in Helena this year, what type of income tax relief will the Treasure State have: An across-the-board rate reduction to boost economic competitiveness and shed the label of having the highest tax in the region, or more targeted relief while other states take bolder action?

The fundamental problem with the ever-rising cost of health care in the United States is the fact that a third party, either employers or the government, pays for over 70 percent of that cost. Patients, therefore, are somewhat isolated from the true cost of their health care. Even if patients wanted to be informed consumers of their own care, they face the reality that prices are unknown or unknowable. The first Trump administration put forth an Executive Order (EO) requiring hospitals to post prices for common medical procedures and treatments. The order required hospitals to list prices for “common and shoppable items and services” by late 2019. The executive order did not have any penalties for non-compliance. The Biden administration was very lax in enforcing the EO and hospitals were reluctant in their compliance. The second Trump administration has again published an EO , with essentially the same language as the original order. In addition, the order adds the following research: “One economic analysis from 2023 estimated the impact of these regulations, if fully implemented, could result in as much as $80 billion in healthcare savings for consumers, employers, and insurers by 2025. Another report from 2024 suggested healthcare price transparency could help employers reduce healthcare costs by 27 percent across 500 common healthcare services. Recent data has found the top 25 percent of most expensive healthcare service prices have dropped by 6.3 percent per year following the initial implementation of price transparency during my first term.” No references are provided, nor does the new EO include any penalty for non-compliance. Only when people can see the true costs and direct their medical spending intelligently through a free market will costs become transparent and likewise come under control. Health services are like any other economic activity, and because of their highly complex nature, they can only be managed through unregulated interactions of patients and providers. No centralized plan dictated by Executive Orders can account for all of the factors involved in patients’ decisions and care. The best motivator for providing cost awareness in health care for patients as consumers would be to eliminate third-party payer systems and allow patients to control their own health care dollars. This change would increase competition, increase innovation at lower costs, assure quality, and improve access to services. No one would suggest that people should not make their own decisions about daily nutrition, housing, education, or marriage and family. The same should be true of health care.

Tired of waiting for federal action on the nation’s $36 trillion national debt, Governors are banding together to press for state action. Florida Governor DeSantis met with Idaho Governor Little on March 24 to discuss adding a balanced budget amendment to the U. S. Constitution. From the beginning, the Governors were clear that they are asking states to urge lawmakers to vote for a constitutional convention. The main focus of the convention would be federal fiscal accountability.   DeSantis told reporters  during the joint Idaho press conference: “ I am convinced that you are not going to have Congress all of a sudden change its behavior for the long term. I think the reason we’ve gotten into this with respect to fiscal is because there are certain incentives for the people that are in Washington to behave the way they do. And we need to change those incentives.”   He continued :   “If Idaho and Montana join the fight, that gets us to 29 there's a couple other states that are on the precipice as well. You need 34 states to trigger Article Five, where you would actually write an amendment and then eventually send it to the  states for ratification."   Governor Little posted on X: “The freight train of federal spending has to stop. Under Donald Trump’s leadership the size of the federal government is being reduced, now it’s time for Congress to put an end to the ever-growing debt. Grateful to Ron DeSantis for his efforts promoting a balanced budget!” Convention of States Progress Map DeSantis acknowledged the federal fiscal problem has bipartisan blame: “As a proud conservative and as a proud Republican, I have no problem pointing out the truth that this is both parties in Washington that have created this mess. As much as I'd like to come up here and blame the Democrats, the fact of the matter is it's happened under both parties.”   During the 2025 Legislative Session, Idaho lawmakers rejected 3 different applications  for a constitutional convention. They were for the purposes of balancing the budget and imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office for the federal government’s officials and members of Congress. Gov. DeSantis continued his balanced budget tour on March 24 by visiting with Governor Gianforte in Montana to promote the same initiative. Montana also proposed an application for a convention with SJ4 , but it too was rejected. Governor Gianforte stated :   “In Washington, they’ve been spending like drunken sailors – that is not what our Founders envisioned, we need a change, and fast, to prevent our children and grandchildren from inheriting this mess and we can’t expect Washington to impose permanent fiscal restraints on itself. That’s why we need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.”   According to a recent poll , 68% of Americans are in favor of a constitutional convention to propose amendments that would establish term limits, impose spending ceilings, and curb the power of the federal government. The federal government’s $36 trillion in federal debt equates to roughly $106,000 per person in the country. In 2024, the United States spent more on interest costs than on any federal program except Social Security.   There are numerous reasons why this problem must be addressed quickly. A large and growing national debt puts the U.S.  at a greater risk for a fiscal crisis, being vulnerable to foreign creditors, and reducing public and private  investment. Another massive reason is that funds spent on interest payments for the federal debt are not available for infrastructure, defense, or other important national priorities.  In 2020, the average interest rate   on America’s debt was 2.344%, and it has grown to 3.211% as of this year.   In April 2024, U.S. Bank estimated that the federal government was on pace to acquire $1 trillion in new debt every 100 days . If a national emergency were to happen, the government wouldn’t have any other choice but to borrow or print new money. This is why balancing a federal budget is a must. If 49 out of 50 states have to balance their own respective budgets, why shouldn’t the federal government be required too?   On March 26, Moody's Investor Service also published a study on U.S. debt. It originally changed its   rating from “stable” to “negative” when looking at the U. S. credit score in November of 2023, and the findings of this recent study reached the same conclusion. It found that federal policy decisions could lead to worsening debt and higher interest rates for the U.S. The study said: ”T he potential negative credit impact of sustained high tariffs, unfunded tax cuts and significant tail risks to the economy have diminished prospects that these formidable strengths will continue to offset widening fiscal deficits and declining debt affordability.”   Critics claim that the vehicle of a constitutional convention will result in a “runaway convention” that will meddle with the entire constitution. But there is a high threshold of a 3/4 vote, or 38 states needed in order to ratify an amendment to the Constitution to ensure order and stability. Supporters of a constitutional convention acknowledge that there is a strong possibility that a constitutional convention won’t happen. If there are enough applications, one stream of thought is that Congress will propose appropriate ratification to send to the states, rather than having the state legislatures call the shots.   The last time the federal budget was balanced was in 2001. Spending has gotten so out of control that states must step up to act. This push by Governors Little, Gianforte and DeSantis shows that there is a real desire and momentum for a constitutional convention. Lawmakers in Idaho, Montana, and around the country should seriously consider moving forward with their applications to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government.

The Inland Northwest came out to support free markets on Friday night in a very, very big way. Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) - the region's premier free market think tank - hosted its 2025 Spring Dinner at the Coeur d'Alene Resort - welcoming a sell out crowd of more than 600 to see Judge Jeanine Pirro. "If you ever wonder about change - we can make change, just like you do at the Mountain States Policy Center," Judge Pirro said. Her speech focused on the current direction of the country, her time as a prosecutor in New York, and the work to advance free market ideas. The yearly event is a fundraiser for MSPC, and the amount of funds raised for the organization hit a record Friday night. "We are so very grateful to our supporters, who know that they are part of something special by joining our effort," MSPC President Chris Cargill said. MSPC also announced the recipient of its 2025 Elevation Award - the organization's highest honor, given to the leader who has advocated for the advancement of free market ideas and solutions. Idaho Speaker of the House Mike Moyle was named the Elevation Award recipient for his work to cut the tax burden in the state.

A packed house at the Coeur d'Alene Resort Friday celebrated free markets and the announcement of Mountain States Policy Center's 2025 Elevation Award recipient. The award is the highest honor of MSPC, given to the individual(s) who advance free market solutions and ideas. Mike Moyle, Idaho's Speaker of the House, was named the 2025 honoree, for his work to lower the tax burden on Idaho families. MSPC President Chris Cargill called Moyle "Idaho's tax-cutting king." "Under Speaker Moyle, the effort to reduce Idaho's income tax just keeps happening," Cargill said. "That is good for businesses, families and the state's economy." Speaker Moyle is Idaho's longest-serving legislator, having served since 1998. “Most of the things you remember, are the personal experiences," Moyle said. "When someone comes through with a personal problem and you’re able to fix it. That’s what this whole building is about. It’s about family. It’s about keeping our country, and doing what’s right.” VIDEO:

Imagine being assigned to a grocery store based on your zip code. Would you be able to find all the products you need at the right price? How would the grocery store adjust its pricing and offerings if it knew you didn’t have any other choice? This is the dilemma public school families often face – a situation wherein a quality school and equal opportunity can simply depend on where you live. For decades, millions of American children have been assigned to a public school. Those who live in neighborhood A, for example, must go to school A. The reasons for this were, initially, easy to understand – transportation ease and neighborhood cohesion were thought to be part of the equation. But policies of racial discrimination were also at play. There are two kinds of open enrollment policies – intradistrict and interdistrict. The first, intradistrict, allows families to transfer to a different school, but only within the same school district. The second policy, interdistrict, allows families to transfer to any school within the state, regardless of district. Currently, 43 states have an open enrollment policy, but they can vary wildly. Some may be voluntary; others may choose a limited number of students who qualify. Some states use open enrollment for students who face geographic challenges, while others use open enrollment as a means for school integration. Unfortunately, there has also been a dark side to assigning children to schools based on neighborhood or zip code – segregation. In the early 1900s, the federal government adopted a practice known as “redlining,” which based the approval of federally backed home loans on the economic well-being of a neighborhood. Congress reversed the policy some 50 years later, but the ripple effects were enormous, and in many states, there was a strong correlation between the redlining maps, and a school district’s boundaries. Since the COVID lockdowns, and even before, families in every state have been asking for more education options. Recognizing that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work, more than 30 states have expanded choice programs. Education choice can mean various things, including attendance at a public school you may choose, a private school, homeschooling, magnet schools, charter schools and more. Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have recently passed choice expansions to include tax credits and education savings accounts (ESA’s). Polling shows both options are popular. But the most popular form of public education choice is open enrollment. Polling completed by the Yes, Every Kid Foundation shows more than 60% support for ending a federal requirement that students be assigned to the public school closest to them. Other polling has shown support in the mid to high 70s . Idaho has one of the strongest open enrollment laws in the nation. The Public Schools Without Boundaries report gives Idaho a ranking of second among the 50 states. In particular, researchers give the Gem State high marks for its cross-district enrollment and within-district enrollment. School districts are required to post capacity by grade level and all policies regarding open enrollment on their website . Washington state receives poor marks for its open enrollment policies. While the state allows for limited cross-district open enrollment, it allows districts to reject transfers for various reasons, including a student’s ability or disability. Furthermore, districts are not required to provide the public with information about cross-district enrollment – citizens must ask for it first. Montana’s open enrollment policy has improved but could still use adjustments. The Montana State Legislature adopted a cross-district open enrollment plan in 2023 and required that school districts could only reject students for limited reasons, such as truancy or disciplinary reasons. Unfortunately, Montana does not require school districts to post anything about open enrollment policies on their websites. Furthermore, school districts are not required to adopt within-district open enrollment policies. Wyoming receives low marks for its open enrollment policies. While school districts are allowed to have cross-district open enrollment, the state doesn’t require it. Furthermore, cross-district enrollment is only allowed if a school district’s Board of Trustees approves. The state does not require any information about open enrollment on school district websites, and districts can even charge transfer students for tuition. Even states with the best open enrollment policies can improve their policies and transparency, thereby making it easier for children to access a quality education. Public schools are very much part of education choice. Most families are satisfied with the performance of their local schools. But not every child is the same, and families must have the opportunity to seek other options. Open enrollment is a popular form of public education choice that is supported by those on the left and the right. Children should not be assigned to a school simply based on where they live, but rather whether that school offers the best opportunity for them to succeed. As states seek to innovate and improve public schools, open enrollment for all children must be at the top of the list of policy reforms. And transparency regarding a state’s open enrollment policies should be paramount.

You have to feel bad for Washingtonians. While the rest of the nation today enjoys the relief of surviving another National Tax Day (April 15), our friends in Washington instead woke up to the news that no fewer than five new tax increase bills were introduced on April 16. Also, despite legislative transparency rules requiring at least five days' notice before action on a bill, same-day public hearings were scheduled on these new tax increases. As reported by KIRO radio : "All five [tax increase] bills are scheduled for their first public hearing Wednesday, giving supporters and critics barely any time to digest the details.” Here are the new bills introduced today proposing billions in tax increases: SB 5811: Targeting Tesla with a new excise tax   SB 5812: Property tax increase SB 5813: Capital gains income and death tax increase SB 5814: Select sales tax increase and requiring certain businesses to prepay taxes SB 5815: Business tax increase (B&O)   While neighboring states like Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have spent the year adopting or considering “record” tax cuts, Washington lawmakers stand alone in their belief that they can tax their way to economic prosperity.   As for the poor public process being used, consider the bill page for one of the new proposed tax increases: This is not a good look for any bill (introducing and holding a public hearing on the same day). It is a totally unacceptable process for tax increases.  Per Senate Rule 45 : "At least five days' notice shall be given of all public hearings held by any committee other than the rules committee. Such notice shall contain the date, time and place of such hearing together with the title and number of each bill, or identification of the subject matter, to be considered at such hearing. By a majority vote of the committee members present at any committee meeting such notice may be dispensed with. The reason for such action shall be set forth in a written statement preserved in the records of the meeting." Sure, this transparency protection can be waived, but is that really the best way to govern when trying to impose billions in tax increases? The 2025 Legislative Sessions across the region have been one for the record books. Record tax cuts for states like Idaho, while Washington instead advances billions in tax increases despite strong economic headwinds. To those in the Evergreen State, good luck.

Have you ever wondered how your tax dollars are being spent in Idaho? State Controller Brandon Woolf has just the tool for you: Transparent Idaho . This fantastic government transparency website provides searchable details on state, county, city, and local district spending. As of April 7, additional education spending details are also now available. According to a press release by the Controller’s Office, here are the new education data points that can be searched:   “Education Enrollment Data: Access annual school enrollment data across Idaho’s public education system, including detailed data for individual districts and schools. Salary Data: View workforce salary information across various education providers. Transaction-Level Data: Track individual financial transactions made by education providers throughout the state, providing a more detailed view of how public funds are allocated and spent within the education sector.” Controller Woolf said: “Transparency isn’t just about opening up government records – it’s about giving Idahoans the tools they need to understand how their tax dollars are being spent. The addition of education enrollment, salary, and transaction-level data on Transparent Idaho is a step forward in our mission to build trust in government and empower citizens to be more informed and engaged. It is often noted that sunshine is the best disinfectant, and with more data at their fingertips, Idahoans can better participate in government decisions that directly impact their lives.” With his ongoing commitment to government transparency, you can see why Controller Woolf was one of Mountain States Policy Center’s first Elevation Award winners in 2023 . Even more improvements are planned for Transparent Idaho. As noted in the Controller’s April 7 press release: “The expansion of Transparent Idaho to include education data and visualizations marks just the beginning. We continuously seek opportunities to enhance the platform's offerings, providing deeper insights into Idaho’s education system and intergovernmental systems. Future updates will look to expand the platform, delivering even greater transparency into the financial and operational aspects of Idaho’s education system.” Perhaps the next information added to Transparent Idaho will pull from MSPC’s recommendation for a Public School Transparency Act . Among the education details that we believe should be easily accessible: Amount of total dollars (all funds – local, state and federal) spent by the district that year. Amount of total dollars spent per student, per year. Amount and percentage of total dollars allocated to average classroom. Average administrator salary and benefits. Average teacher salary and benefits. Ratio of administrators to teachers to students. MSPC researchers earlier this year spent hundreds of hours going through every Idaho school district’s budget to create an example of what the Public School Transparency Act could look like. We’ll be publishing this report in the coming days. Hopefully, one day soon, these details will also be available on Transparent Idaho.

The United States Supreme Court ruled. Voters decided. Other states have acted. But all of this wasn't enough for justices on the Washington state Supreme Court. That court on Thursday brazenly tossed a 2023 initiative in Spokane that prevented homeless camping within 1,000 feet of public areas including schools, childcare centers and parks. Concluding the measure was "administrative" in nature, rather than a policy matter, justices claimed it couldn't be brought to voters. The state Supreme Court was the only court to rule that way, with other courts upholding the measure, calling it a "classic vagrancy ordinance." The ruling will have chilling effects on the future of enforcing homeless camping laws in Washington. The dissent warns that the ruling "effectively eliminates local initiative power." Indeed, it now seems impossible for any measure to be adopted in Washington unless local politicians approve and don't give voters a choice. Leadership of large northwest cities have been reluctant to fix the homeless problem via enforcement, even after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson. That case began when the City of Grants Pass, Oregon, enforced city ordinances that prevented camping and sleeping in public parks by issuing civil citations and fines to violators. The plaintiffs  in the case contested the citations received under these ordinances as ‘cruel and unusual punishment,’ claiming that no other option for sleeping existed for them. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that imposing civil penalties on homeless people for sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go is unconstitutional. That ruling essentially handcuffed policymakers throughout the West. California Governor Gavin Newsom, for example, said: "California has invested billions to address homelessness, but rulings from the bench have tied the hands of state and local governments to address this issue. The Supreme Court can now correct course and end the costly delays from lawsuits that have plagued our efforts to clear encampments and deliver services to those in need.” The U.S. Supreme Court agreed. Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said : "Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. At bottom, the question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. It does not." Local leaders in communities where homeless encampments are out of control applauded the ruling, not only from the standpoint of public health but also public safety. But for months after the voter initiative passed, and even after the court ruled, leaders in Spokane were slow to enforce the measure. Now, with an outrageous assist from the Washington state Supreme Court, they don't have to. The failed Washington state policies that led to the problem will continue. And it will likely only get worse. Voters tried to stop it. Government officials think they know better. Perhaps Washingtonians need to look toward states like Idaho to see how the issue can be successfully addressed.

During the 2025 Legislative Session, the Idaho Legislature allocated more money to the Department of Lands , especially to improve fire detection. One of the most future-facing features of this budget allocation is the provision for fire detection cameras powered by Artificial Intelligence, a neat complement to the state’s existing approach of harnessing technology to fight wildfires. This investment isn’t simply about keeping up with contemporary challenges, it’s about getting ahead of them. This potential AI-powered solution was discussed in one of our previous blogs . We noted: "Artificial Intelligence can be our first line of defense to mitigate the impact of wildfires." In that blog, we highlighted how AI-enabled systems, especially those using fire detection cameras, can track the presence of smoke or heat signatures in real-time while providing faster response times and improved firefighting efforts. Funding these AI fire detection cameras shows how the Idaho Legislature is acknowledging the critical role of AI in fire management and how it can revolutionize it. The state will be able to detect fires earlier than ever before with these cameras, so emergency responders can have more time to respond before a wildfire gets out of control. This approval by Idaho reflects a trend in wildfire management across the U.S. in which AI-powered fire detection technology is becoming more common. In fact, Arizona is leading the way in the usage of this technology, with utility companies such as APS already implementing AI-equipped cameras to help detect fires early. Arizona also enjoyed great success in its firefighting efforts, with improved detection times resulting in rapid responses and less map coverage of wildfires since these technologies were implemented. APS workers do not monitor these cameras 24/7. The AI cameras are constantly scanning, so when they detect a potential threat, the cameras send an alert to an incident command center. They are then reviewed by a person. As reported by Arizona Family News : "APS fire mitigation manager Wade Ward said the new gadgets APS 'to detect fires early on and early detection means early suppression.' First responders are on high alert for fires year-round, but they can’t be everywhere at once. The AI cameras look like building security cameras, but they can constantly scan for threats. 'Much like a Forest Service tower, where you have eyes looking for smoke, these cameras are looking 24 hours a day, 365 days a year,' Ward said." Additionally, on the West Coast, California has been nationally recognized for its innovative AI methods. The ALERTCalifornia system, developed by UC San Diego, utilizes AI to analyze video feeds from over 1,000 cameras statewide. In 2023, this system detected 1,200 fires, often faster than traditional 911 reporting.  This innovation was recognized as a Best Invention of 2023 by TIME magazine. ​ This additional funding in Idaho, specifically designated for fire detection cameras, will position the Gem State to integrate the technology of today into our wildfire prevention plan with the Department of Lands' best-in-class budget. It’s a bold, tech-savvy transition that keeps safety in mind while embracing innovation. As we stated in our previous blog post, AI fire detection systems are the cutting-edge tool that can help fight wildfires and will save both lives and hundreds of millions of acres of land. It's time to complement the nostalgic Smokey the Bear defense with the AI Terminator of wildfires. This fast, accurate, and relentless system will seek to save our communities and landscapes using these advanced tools.

Montana is proving itself once again to be an entrepreneur-friendly state by being named the best state in the country for business startups. According to data from Entrepreneur Media , the Treasure State has the advantageous combination of a low regulatory burden, a simple and reduced tax code, and a high business startup survival rate. The statistics show that Montana’s consistent efforts towards attracting and retaining businesses are paying off. Thanks to the work of state leaders like Governor Gianforte and Secretary of State Jacobsen, entrepreneurs continue to flock to Montana.   Governor Gianforte said :     “As an entrepreneur, I know firsthand the joys and challenges of starting and growing a business. With my experience, I am working every day as governor to make government more efficient and responsive to Montanans looking to invest in their dreams and in the Treasure State. To continue our positive momentum, we must continue cutting taxes so businesses can create good-paying jobs for Montanans across the state.”   Secretary Jacobsen stated : “Cutting red tape, becoming more business friendly, inviting businesses, we want businesses to come to the state. We invite businesses to start here.”   The report found that Montana saw roughly 4,800 startups in 2024, along with a calculated startup opportunity score of 9.55, and a 10-year survival rate of 41%. In January of this year, Secretary Jacobsen’s office reported that 6,000 new businesses were created, which is 400 more than January of 2024. Montana has consistently found itself to be ranked as a top state for its business climate, including being ranked as 5th in the country in tax competitiveness according to the Tax Foundation’s recent 2025 publication . This news also comes after Governor Gianforte and Lieutenant Governor Juras celebrated the milestone  of amending and repealing 25% of the state’s regulatory code. With that, Montana has grown its employment numbers by an average of 1.8% over the last five years.   Secretary Jacobsen has played a big role in fostering this favorable business environment. Jacobsen was thanked for her important efforts as one of Mountain States Policy Center’s Elevation Award recipients  at our Spring Dinner in 2023. After her election in 2021, Secretary Jacobsen has done a tremendous amount of work towards reducing the administrative and regulatory hassle when creating and maintaining a business. One example is from 2022 when Secretary Jacobsen announced business filing fees were reduced, saving Montana businesses approximately $1,139,000 . Montana continues to demonstrate that it is a top state in which to start a business. Last year, the 2024 Montana Business Economic Report  found that 63,808 new businesses were created, and over 324,000 businesses were in “good standing” according to the Better Business Bureau. The number of “good standing” operations has also grown each year. Creating an attractive business environment is arguably more important now than ever.  The most recent U.S Business Formation Statistics  tell us that in 2023, the U.S. saw the highest number of business filings ever. This 8% increase from 5.08 million to 5.49 million is also the highest jump between two consecutive years. The numbers exhibit that Americans are more ambitious and entrepreneurial than ever, and Montana offers a perfect spot for these business creators to call home.

Mountain States Policy Center - the region's premier free market think tank - will welcome a sold out crowd of more than 600 to its 2025 Spring Dinner at the Coeur d'Alene Resort on Friday night. The event begins at 7:00pm. Judge Jeanine Pirro, co-host of The Five on Fox News Channel will keynote the event. The organization will also announce the recipient of its 2025 Elevation Award - a closely-guarded secret. “Judge Pirro is a no-nonsense, highly respected former District Attorney and County Court Judge, politician, legal commentator, author and champion of victim’s rights,” explained Chris Cargill, President of Mountain States Policy Center. As District Attorney, Pirro crusaded on behalf of the vulnerable victims creating new specialized units to investigate and prosecute crimes involving hate and bias, elder abuse, domestic abuse, environmental crime, youth and gang violence, sex crimes, child abuse, pedophiles on the Internet and animal abuse.   She previously hosted the program “Justice with Judge Jeanine,” one of the most watched programs on cable news. In addition, Judge Pirro hosts a radio show on WABC New York opining on legal, political, and contemporary issues of the day.   “Judge Pirro’s message will come at a time when the legal system is under intense scrutiny,” Cargill said, adding “her presentation couldn’t be more relevant.” MSPC’s Spring and Fall Dinners are the region’s largest celebration of free markets, collectively attracting more than 1,200 guests annually in Coeur d’Alene and Boise. MSPC is a non-profit, non-partisan research center that provides free market solutions to successfully grow the region. It concentrates its work in Idaho, Eastern Washington, Montana and Wyoming – one of the first organizations of its kind to cover multiple states. The mission is to empower those in the Mountain States to succeed through non-partisan, quality research that promotes free enterprise, individual liberty and limited government. ### MEDIA NOTE: MSPC's Spring Dinner is open to the media. Those interested in covering the event should contact info@mountainstatespolicy.org .

Fairness and consistency in public contracts are essential for a healthy economic climate. When certain industries are subject to a competitive bidding process while others are not, we erode the foundation of accountability and transparency in contracting. Idaho Senate Bill 1081 seeks to establish uniform and competitive procedures for public contracts, which will level the playing field for all industries when seeking to apply for government work and projects. Currently, when public agencies are looking for professional services on projects over $50,000 the selection process can be based on subjective factors, which tend to focus on the credentials and past performance of firms, versus any definitive, measurable financial bidding processes. In some cases, final decision-making may not consider cost at all, which provides a public sector agency the freedom to negotiate fees. If qualifications are necessary, the lack of transparency can lead to choices that do not always serve taxpayers' best interests and ultimately hurt fiscal practices. As a member of the Nampa City Council in Idaho, I’ve witnessed firsthand how the current process for selecting professional service contracts for public projects can be flawed and inefficient. Many choices are made subjectively and not with a clearly or measurably devised bidding process. This can potentially raise industry costs and lead to bad financial management that wastes taxpayer funds. Senate Bill 1081 seeks to address this. The proposal makes it very clear that public agencies will select firms for professional services based on qualifications, demonstrated competence, and clearly defined publicly available scoring criteria. Agencies will not only have to rank candidates transparently, but they’ll also have to disclose how they made their decisions in the first place. The bill requires that fee schedules be factored into the selection process as up to 25% of the total score. This way, the taxpayers don't pay more than necessary, nor is the quality of work affected. A core component of Senate Bill 1081 is that industries that play a role in public contracts be subject to an equal competitive bidding process similar to how construction projects are treated. In construction, for example, the competitive bid process ensures that taxpayers will get the best price possible, usually by selection of the "low bid" option, from the most qualified companies. But in sectors like professional services, that’s not always so, leading to unvetted fiscal decisions which can often be not conducive to the market or public. The bill makes certain that all professional service contracts, including those for engineering, architectural services, land surveying, and construction management receive the same scrutiny and competition as other contracts. This is a crucial step toward fairness and market integrity as it prevents favoritism. Having clear and consistent criteria, including details on fees, will allow the best firm to be awarded a public contract in the most cost-effective way to handle taxpayer-funded projects.

The theme of the 2025 Legislative Sessions in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming has been pursuing record tax relief. The odd state out in this important tax relief bonanza, however, has been Washington which instead seems fixated on inventing new and even more damaging ways to tax businesses and individuals. Reviewing the billions in tax increases recently proposed by the majority party in Washington, one can’t help but hear the gleeful cheer of Prince John in Disney’s Robin Hood : “Taxes! Taxes! Beautiful, lovely taxes!” Unfortunately for Washingtonians, some lawmakers have taken this screech from Prince John too literally: “Double the taxes! Triple the taxes!” According to the Washington Research Council  (WRC), here are the details on the Senate's billions in proposed tax increases: “Senate Democrats released their  revenue proposals for the 2025–27 operating budget . They would impose a  wealth tax  (dubbed the financial intangibles tax) and a  payroll expense tax , increase the  property tax growth limit , and  repeal several tax exemptions . They would also  reduce the state sales tax rate  from 6.5% to 6% [in 2027]. There are no public fiscal notes yet, but the press release includes general revenue estimates. The wealth tax would increase revenues by $12 billion over the four-year period. The payroll expense tax would increase revenues by $6.9 billion over the four-year period. The property tax changes would increase revenues by $779 million over the four-year period. The elimination of tax preferences would increase revenues by $1 billion over the four-year period. Cutting the sales tax would reduce revenues by $3.250 billion over the four-year period. Thus, Senate Democrats are proposing $21 billion in new taxes over four years.” The WRC also notes the billions in proposed 2025 tax increases would be among the largest in state history. Allowing these massive tax increases to take effect immediately while not providing the proposed sales tax relief until 2027 reminds me of Wimpy from Popeye . The message appears to be that they’ll gladly give you sales tax relief on Tuesday for billions in tax increases today. The dreaded blank ghost tax bill  has also rematerialized in Washington with HB 2043 . As originally introduced, this transportation tax increase proposal simply said lawmakers plan “to establish additional transportation revenue sources from a range of sources to ensure that Washington's transportation system continues to deliver the level of service that residents depend on and that fuels the state's economy and growth.” That’s it. No other details were provided. HB 2043 was introduced this way despite the legislature earlier this year adopting rules to prevent  this type of Title Only bill. While Washington lawmakers appear to believe they can defy the law of economics by imposing burdensome taxes on economic growth factors, Canada’s new Prime Minister recently noted : “Cancelling the hike in capital-gains tax will catalyze investment across our communities and incentivize builders, innovators, and entrepreneurs to grow their businesses in Canada, creating more higher paying jobs.” This is the basic economic lesson that policymakers in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are following by adopting what their governors call “record” tax relief this year to help grow their state economies and improve their economic competitiveness. Though Washington Governor Ferguson hasn’t commented yet on these tax increase proposals, he did say during his State of the State Address : “But let me start by stating that the era of assuming unrealistic growth in revenue is over. To be specific, I will not sign a budget that requires unrealistic revenue growth to balance.” He also  stated about the budget , “We’re not going to tax our way out of this thing. Not going to happen.” Perhaps Governor Ferguson can play the role of King Richard and finally stop the legislature’s Prince John-inspired tax insanity.

The Idaho State Tax Commission recently released its latest annual tax burden study  and the findings confirm that Idaho is on the right track for economic competitiveness. This outlook continues to improve with the additional tax relief provided over the last several years. The study is based on the census data from 2022 and shows that Idaho is one of the best states in the union at providing its residents with a manageable tax burden.   Idaho Tax Commission Chairman Jeff McCray commented ,  “2022 has been the most advantageous tax year for Idaho taxpayers in the last 25 years. Idaho is 15.7% below the U.S. average tax rate for personal income paid in taxes and 17.7% below the U.S. average rate for taxes paid per person.”   The Commission found from calculating state and local taxes that Idaho ranked 41st in overall tax burden and 43rd when comparing taxes per person (50 being the lowest burden). Idaho taxed $93 per $1,000 of personal income. This total includes $24.24 of individual income tax, $9.70 of corporate income tax, $27.23 of sales tax, $19.50 of property tax (local), and $6.06 of motor vehicle tax. It’s helpful to compare these figures to other states. In contrast, New Mexico in 2022 taxed $152 per $1,000 of personal income and New York taxed $168, which is 80% more than Idaho. As the graph shows, Idaho mainly relies on income, sales, and local property tax (there is no statewide property tax). Idaho’s rankings will likely look even better in the years to come because of the passage of new tax relief legislation over the past couple of years. This year the Idaho Legislature reduced the state income tax rate  for individuals and businesses from 5.695% to 5.3%. This will result in $253 million being sent back to Idahoans. Over the past four years, the state’s income tax rate has been reduced every legislative session. While Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have been working to reduce their tax burdens, Washington is heading in the wrong direction.   Over the last 10 years, Washington State has slid from being ranked 15th in business climate to 35th in the country. Washington technically doesn’t have a graduated income tax, due to a prohibition in the state constitution, but in 2022 it passed a capital gains income tax charging 7% on stock sales exceeding $250,000. State lawmakers continually raise taxes and yet are still facing a $10-12 billion budget shortfall . This year Washington is considering multiple tax increases that are estimated to be the biggest in 30 years . This includes imposing a first-in-the-country wealth tax on assets and worldwide wealth, property tax increases, a business tax increase, and a tax on paying certain employees high wages.   This tax and spend mentality of the past may be getting a needed check, however.  Recently elected Governor Bob Ferguson provides hope as he stated about the budget , “We’re not going to tax our way out of this thing. Not going to happen. ”   Wyoming on the other hand continues to stay on the right track. Forgoing a personal or corporate income tax, it ranked 1st in the Tax Foundation’s 2025 State Competitiveness  Index . Wyoming holds a low tax burden, being 47th in the country with only $86 taxed per $1,000 of personal income . Wyoming lawmakers also acted this session on tax relief when they passed  legislation  that cut property taxes by 25% on homes valued up to $1 million.   Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon celebrated this effort saying , “I have always supported tax accountability, and this bill provides tax relief without transferring the burden to our core energy industry. This act, coupled with the bills I signed last year, responds to the call for property tax relief.” Montana is trending upward as well. Over the past couple of years, it has reduced the number of tax brackets from 7 to 2 and lowered the top rate from 6.9% to 5.9%. This legislative session legislators have focused on efforts to reduce the burden felt by the income tax even more. Governor Gianforte would like to do this by lowering the top tax bracket rate from 5.9% to 4.9%. No matter which tax relief version is passed, it’s encouraging to see the focus of the legislature be on making Montana even more business-friendly and easing the burden of everyday Montanans. Governor Gianforte said , “Since 2021, we’ve lowered the income tax rate most Montanans pay from 6.9% to 5.9%. We should go farther. We should reduce that income tax rate from 5.9% to 4.9%, providing tax relief to workers and small business owners alike. That’s why we should expand the earned income tax credit for hardworking lower- and middle-income Montanans… Our proposed tax cut provides more than $850 million in permanent relief, a new record tax cut that benefits Montanans at every income level. That’s $850 million that will remain in the pockets of Montanans who earn it.”   The Idaho Tax Commission’s findings are clear that Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are moving in the right direction on tax burden. Washington is the odd state out with its continued fixation on a tax-and-spend budget mentality. Perhaps this is why it’s the only state of the four facing a budget shortfall.  Based on the ongoing regional state tax-cutting efforts since 2022, the next iteration of Idaho’s Tax Commission report should have even more good news for taxpayers in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

In its recently released “ 28th Annual Highway Report ,” the Reason Foundation ranked Idaho 15th in the nation when it comes to cost effectiveness and road conditions, but its authors cautioned officials when it comes to spending on roads and bridges. The Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank based out of Washington D.C., has a long history of providing key insights and recommendations on transportation spending at all levels of government. Its latest report found that, overall, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming ranked well when it came to overall road spending, safety and traffic congestion (15th, 16th, and 12th, respectively). Washington state, on the other hand, ranked 47th. Yet, despite the positive news in some states, transportation officials still have more work to do. Some key areas lawmakers and transportation officials should continue to focus on: Disbursements & Spending The Reason Foundation noted both Idaho and Washington’s poor rankings when it comes to spending on roads and bridges in 2022. In addition, all four states analyzed had above-average disbursements per lane-mile. While disbursements can be tricky due to the long timelines of projects, the authors urge officials to “focus on reducing capital-bridge disbursements and other disbursements.” In short, officials should watch spending carefully as it relates to capital expansion and maintenance in their eight- and twelve-year improvement plans. Project delivery methods , like public-private partnerships , along with the latest technologies (e.g. drones, probe analytics) can help reduce costs and improve the life of the bridge or roadway Performance Performance is best measured in terms of delay, which is the difference between observed travel times during the peak periods and free-flow speeds. As more businesses, people and freight move within an urban area, drivers experience increased delay, leading to lost time, wasted fuel, and excess emissions. The report pulls data from the INRIX Global Traffic Scorecard, which notes that commute delays in the Boise area cost the typical driver $340 per year in lost time.    Pavement & Bridge Condition Structurally deficient bridges are bridges that are in poor condition and in need of rehabilitation. While both Idaho and Washington have a lower share of deficient bridges than Montana and Wyoming, more than five percent of bridges in these states are still at risk. Pavement condition is another measure of how state assets are maintained. In urban areas, Idaho and Montana ranked well, while Washington and Wyoming tended to have rougher roads. The authors did note improvements in arterial road conditions compared to the prior year rankings. Safety/Fatalities Safety should be a top priority of transportation officials across the country. As measured by fatality rates, Idaho ranked as 5th best in urban areas and 23rd on rural freeways, with fatality rates of 0.65 and 1.17 fatalities per 100 million VMT, respectively. Montana ranked far lower, with 1.44 and 1.69 fatality rates, respectively, the bottom 10 in each category. Fatality rates on Washington state’s urban and rural highways were 1.02 and 1.05 fatalities per 100 million VMT, respectively, while Wyoming’s urban and rural highways registered rates of 0.81 and 1.54, respectively. While the latest Reason report highlighted some positive shifts in road condition and congestion rankings, other areas, such as spending and safety, should garner extra attention from transportation officials and lawmakers. Officials should look at establishing performance-based benchmarks to ensure the road system is adequate to handle the influx of people, businesses and economic activity coming to the region. MSPC has outlined nine performance measures  lawmakers could put in place to ensure the movement of people and goods continues throughout the Mountain States.

Sometimes legislation can be very difficult to understand. This wasn't one of those times. Idaho's state House has approved perhaps the simplest bill introduced this legislative session. The measure - House Bill 416 , introduced by Representative Kyle Harris, requires money distributed to school districts or charter schools to be spent... where they are supposed to be spent. From the bill: A simple concept, to be sure, and one that should not be controversial. But approval of the legislation wasn't unanimous. Some legislators argued that school districts should have the flexibility to spend funds differently. One lawmaker called it "disrespectful" to local school leaders. State Representative Barbara Ehardt argues in favor of Idaho H416. The confusion over school district budgets and school funding is not new. In fact, with billions of dollars at stake, even some school district leaders may struggle to tell you exactly where the dollars are going. Unfortunately, school district budgets are a maze of jargon and information that is also not easily understandable by the general public. In addition to H416, lawmakers have the ability to improve transparency and give parents and taxpayers a clearer understanding of what is happening in public schools. In doing so, they can help school districts be committed to increasing educational opportunities for all children. A Public School Transparency Act (PSTA) - an MSPC idea and policy recommendation - would help taxpayers and parents determine whether their local district has enough funds and whether it is properly spending the cash in the classroom. The concept is simple: every school district should report the same data on page one of their budgets, and on their website. By doing so, parents and members of the community could clearly understand budget details and be able to compare district to district. Reported items should include: 1.  Amount of total dollars (all funds – local, state and federal) spent by the district that year 2.  Amount of total dollars spent per student, per year 3.  Amount & percentage of total dollars allocated to average classroom 4.  Average administrator salary & benefits 5.  Average teacher salary & benefits 6.  Ratio of administrators to teachers to students Some schools may go further, reporting student outcomes, teacher retention rates and more. A 2024 Mountain States Policy Center poll found strong support for a Public School Transparency Act in Idaho - 82% support. As we wait for legislative action, Mountain States Policy Center will publish the first edition of the Public School Transparency Index this April. The data contained in the report comes directly from state and district resources, reports and budgets.

With four little boys, I frequently discuss Chicken Little and what does and does not constitute an emergency. Sometimes the screams of panic are totally justified but usually, it’s just an acorn that hits us on the head, not the sky. The Idaho Legislature seems to be creating a similar conversation with the bureaucratic authors of temporary rules, in the form of Senate Bill 1076 .   At federal and state-level governments temporary rules are an accessible tool of the executive branch. By their nature, temporary rules avoid the typical rulemaking process which would require feedback from concerned citizens and accountability to the legislature. Instead, these rules enjoy a flexible and quick promulgation timeline allowing them to be used for emergency or unforeseen situations.   In times of actual emergencies, temporary rules are a huge benefit to the speed and efficiency at which the government can respond to situations. However, every person’s definition of an emergency differs in varying degrees and the threat of an overenthusiastic executive or bureaucratic agency liberally designating emergencies is a real danger to the separation of powers.    For example, this loophole tends to be overused. At the federal level, a Government Accountability Office study  found that federal agencies avoided the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 35% of the time on 568 major rules and 44% on 30,000 nonmajor rules adopted from 2003 to 2010. To quote a professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School, “It is simply implausible that such widespread use of interim-final or temporary regulations is either necessary or consistent with the APA."   State-level temporary rulemaking varies based on each state and the current administration’s directive. Idaho has already achieved major victories in regulatory reform and oversight, emergency power restrictions, and agency oversight of rulemaking, but supporters of SB 1076 feel the state can take additional steps in protecting the separation of powers.   Senate Bill 1076  recognizes that “temporary rules do not always follow the negotiated rulemaking process. Therefore, to ensure accountability of agency rules to the legislature to Idaho citizens, temporary rules shall be used only in emergency or other limited situations where negotiated rulemaking is not feasible. Agencies shall make every effort to promulgate rules utilizing the negotiated rulemaking process.”   The bill specifies the reasons for a governor authorizing a temporary rule be when “An imminent threat to the public health, safety or welfare from a specified danger that was unknown to the agency prior to or during the most recent session of the legislature or from measurable worsening of such threat or danger.” The bill will also require the governor to declare why the guidelines are needed at an earlier effective date.   The amended version of SB 1076 leaves more flexibility for the governor to extend the temporary rules and still allows for a person aggrieved by the rule to challenge it in accordance with the Idaho Code. The cost of the proposed legislation is expected to be minimal. The bill passed the Senate 35-0 on February 28 and has been referred to the House State Affairs Committee where it has sat since March 3, 2025.   Idaho has made great strides to limit government and teach the bureaucracy a couple of things about Chicken Little and real emergencies. Senate Bill 1076 goes a few steps further to ensure that even in unforeseen circumstances, more than one voice is involved in implementing temporary rules for “falling sky” events or avoiding unnecessary guidelines in the case of acorns. It remains to be seen if SB 1076 will make it across the finish line by the end of the session.