Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane, Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen, and Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray joined forces with a coalition of secretaries of state nationwide taking a stand against federal overreach and urging President Donald J. Trump to support repeal of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA).   In a letter sent on February 18, 2025 , the secretaries lambasted the CTA for saddling small businesses with excessive regulations and bureaucratic red tape and noted that “implementation of the Act by the Biden administration has been an absolute train wreck.”   Until the passage of the CTA, this kind of regulation belonged exclusively to the states. The Act effectively created a new category of federal corporate regulation that authorizes the disclosure of individuals’ private information to foreign governments and regulatory agencies for the express purpose of criminal investigation without court authorization or agency justification.   The new law unsurprisingly sparked extensive litigation. Although the so-called “Beneficial Ownership Information” (BOI) reporting rule for small businesses had been temporarily stayed by a lower court, on the same date the letter was sent to President Trump, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued its decision  to allow the rule to go into effect even as the lawsuit over its constitutionality advances through the court system. In other words, while the BOI reporting rule may ultimately be struck down by the courts, millions of small businesses will still need to comply and file their reports no later than March 21, 2025.   The secretaries’ letter notes that the back and forth between the courts has further undermined their ability to convey accurate information and notes that while high-grossing companies and nonprofits are exempt, American small business owners are forced to shoulder a compliance nightmare. This regulatory framework not only risks severe penalties but also places an immense administrative burden on those already struggling to compete.   “Since the enactment of the CTA, our offices have received frequent communication from constituents expressing concerns, including tax attorneys and certified public accountants on their behalf,” the letter stated. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)— the federal regulatory agency charged with enforcing the new small business reporting rules—has been “unable to provide clarity and sufficient support.” The secretaries further stated their grave concerns that their states’ businesses are left “bewildered and grasping for answers.”   Due to the expected volume of calls, FinCEN apparently tried to assure all parties that although small business owners who have compliance questions will likely not be able to speak to a live person, a chatbot will be readily available to assist—an excellent comfort to the people who face fines of $10,000 and two years in prison for providing wrong answers.   The letter further cites a staggering estimate: complying with the CTA would require 25 million small business owners to expend over 30 million hours, at a cost nearing $145 million—a number that underscores the inefficiency and misdirected priorities of the current mandate. As one passage in the letter aptly puts it, the Act is “yet another hook for the federal government to pursue and/or punish hardworking Americans.”   In response to these critical issues, a bill has been introduced in Congress— H.R. 8147 , titled the “Repealing Big Brother Overreach Act.” This legislation is aimed at dismantling the problematic provisions of the CTA, offering a pathway to alleviate the undue burdens placed on small businesses.   Idaho, Montana and Wyoming’s secretaries of state are joined by those of Alabama, Nebraska, Georgia, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Indiana, Ohio, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kentucky, South Carolina, Louisiana, South Dakota, Mississippi, Tennessee, Missouri, and West Virginia pleading with President Trump to rethink a destructive policy that has left small business owners caught in a web of compliance red tape and legal uncertainty.

Washington State lawmakers have once again introduced a pay-per-mile tax. HB 1921  and SB 5726  would impose a vehicle miles traveled tax (VMT) of 2.6 cents per mile in response to an increase in electric vehicles and more fuel-efficient cars reducing the purchasing power of the gas tax. There are multiple red flags in these proposals for drivers. Though the purpose of the bill is to replace the existing gas tax eventually, there are doubts the new VMT revenue would receive the same 18th Amendment protections ensuring the funds are spent for the construction and maintenance of roads. In fact, the bill proposes an additional 10% surcharge specifically to allow funds to be spent beyond the traditional 18th Amendment protections. Other concerns include a violation of privacy due to the need to report miles driven when registering your vehicle.   The Washington State Transportation Committee has been advocating for a pay-per-mile or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) policy for 12 years . As the number of electric vehicles has gradually increased, the revenue from the gas tax is slowly decreasing.  Around the country, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, and Hawaii have already implemented some form of a pay-per-mile tax.   Senator Marko Liias and Representative Jake Fey think that the most equitable way to tax is through the philosophy, “the more you use, the more you pay.” This Road Usage Charge (RUC) would start at 2.6 cents per mile. This would be reported by the odometer, or GPS tracking reported to the state, and it would be included as a part of the driver’s annual registration fee. For example, including the 10% surcharge, if you drive 10,000 miles a year the VMT would be $286, 15,000 miles it would be $429, and 20,000 miles the VMT would total $572. The timeline for implementation would look like this for all vehicles under 10,000 pounds: July 2027 – Start of voluntary per-mile tax on electric and hybrid vehicle owners. July 2029 – Start of mandatory per-mile tax on all-electric and hybrid vehicle owners. July 2029 – Start of voluntary per-mile tax on gas-vehicle owners that get more than 20 mpg. July 2031 – Start of mandatory per-mile tax on 20+ mpg gas-vehicle owners. The stated purpose of supporters is to eventually replace the gas tax with this RUC charge to fund the construction and maintenance of public roads. The 18th Amendment of the Washington State Constitution requires gas taxes, motor vehicle license fees, and other revenue intended for highway purposes to be placed into a designated Motor Vehicle Fund. This legislation, however, also includes a 10% road usage assessment fee for those participating in the RUC program. This is the first year that this extra fee is being considered inside the charge. The revenue from this extra surcharge will be used for rail, bicycle, pedestrian, and public transportation. Through this sneaky extra charge, lawmakers are able to avoid the 18th Amendment requirements and use highway-related taxes for non-highway purposes. If this pay-per-mile tax is supposed to replace the gas tax, it is already set up to have funds to go to different priorities than the gas tax does. There is a big worry about the government handling such sensitive information such as GPS location and tracking of this program. An argument could be made that this tracking could violate the 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments  of the U.S. Constitution. The bill attempts to address that concern by stating that the legislation must “protect individual’s privacy and civil liberty.” This language, however, is very vague and doesn’t provide any clarity.   The legislation creates a new level of government bureaucracy in hiring more government workers to implement this RUC program. Other states have allowed the private sector to run their pay-per-mile program. In that model, the information would directly be sent to the company, the company would strip all non-essential information from the user’s account, and then send over only the information necessary for taxing purposes to the government. But that is not the case with this legislation. This data also may be used for other reasons. For example, law enforcement will have access to “personally identifying information reported” through the RUC under court order. There will be a temptation from officials to want this information for their own department.   The citizens of Washington have sent a clear message that they do not want a RUC charge. 98% of the 20,000-plus who signed in to testify  were against the bill. With electric and hybrid vehicle owners already having to pay annual fees, this idea doesn’t seem to even the playing field at all.  Lawmakers need to trim their scope to merely replace this gas tax if that is their aim. The extra 10% surcharge allows them to sneak in a way to fund non-road projects circumventing the protections of the 18th Amendment. As commercial trucker Richard Schilling told the Senate Transportation Committee, " this is clearly a bill just to establish a rate and work out the details later.”   If this proposal is truly about a replacement for the gas tax, lawmakers should first ensure the same constitutional protections exist. A good indication if this is the case will be whether they first act on SJR 8202 : “Amending the state Constitution so that state revenue collected from a road usage charge, vehicle miles traveled fee, or other similar type of comparable charge, must be used exclusively for highway purposes.”

Housing affordability is a real concern, but Washington lawmakers are proposing a deeply flawed solution: rent control. While Argentina reaps the benefits  of repealing its disastrous rent control law, Washington legislators are hurling headlong down the path of ruinous third-world housing policy.   HB 1217 would limit rent increases to 7% per year, prohibit any increases during a tenant’s first 12 months, cap late fees at 1.5% of rent, and restrict move-in fees to one month’s rent. On the surface, this might sound like a win for tenants, but history and economics tell a different story. Price controls—whether housing, food, or wages—have repeatedly failed, leading to unintended consequences that hurt the people they aim to help. Rent control is a blunt instrument that ignores the complexity of housing markets. Can legislators articulate the principle that requires them to stop at 7%? Why not 6%, 5%, or 2%? If lawmakers believe they have the third-party omniscience that intellectually and morally qualifies them to set caps on price increases, why not set the price of rent entirely? Or better yet, regulate the price of consumer goods, medical procedures, and pineapples? The answer is simple—because it would be absurd. Yet, housing is somehow seen as an exception, too important to be left to market forces.   Economic theory and history confirm that when prices are artificially suppressed, supply shrinks. Landlords, unable to make a return on investment, sell properties, convert them to short-term rentals, or leave them vacant. Prospective developers—already facing Washington’s onerous zoning, land use, and permitting requirements—become even less willing to build. The result? Fewer rental units and higher costs for tenants in the long run.   While rent control may be new for Washington, price controls are an ancient mechanism used by brutal, totalitarian empires leading to the same patterns of failure. Producers respond to artificial suppression of prices by slowing, stopping, or shifting production to non-regulated activities or goods, or resorting to black market activity.  Instead of solving shortages, price controls exacerbate them, dragging entire economies into decline.   Price controls are not a novel idea. The Foundation for Economic Education’s Jonathan Miltimore usefully traces four millennia  of price controls, which successively weakened each of the empires that attempted them.   Mesopotamian city-state of Eshnunna (circa 2000 BCE): One of the first recorded attempts at price controls, which imposed fixed prices on barley and oil. The result? Economic distortions and scarcity. The Code of Hammurabi (1755 BCE): Created a maze of price control regulations in Babylon. The empire eventually declined, facing economic degradation. Athenian grain price controls (388 BCE): Athens imposed strict controls on grain, leading to food shortages and economic distress. Hoarders were executed, yet the shortages persisted. Roman Emperor Diocletian (301 AD): His Edict on Maximum Prices fixed prices on goods and labor under penalty of death. Merchants simply stopped selling, leading to black markets and further economic decline. The Western Roman Empire collapsed within a century.   The same principles apply today. Whether it’s New York City’s disastrous rent control laws, Nixon’s 1970s price freezes, or Venezuela’s economic collapse under price controls, these policies always lead to fewer goods, higher prices, and worse conditions for consumers.   20th-Century Price Controls Comparison Country/Region Period Type of Price Control Short-Term Effects Long-Term Effects United States WWI & WWII (1914–1945) Price caps on food, fuel, wages Prevented inflation, stabilized prices temporarily Rationing, black markets, supply distortions United States Nixon's Price Controls (1971–1974) Freeze on wages and prices Initially controlled inflation, boosted confidence Severe shortages, inflation surge after lifting controls United States NYC Rent Control (1940s–Present) Rent control Kept some rents low for existing tenants Housing shortages, poor maintenance, black market for rentals Soviet Union USSR (1917–1991) Price controls on food, consumer goods, and wages Kept basic goods affordable (artificially) Chronic shortages, long lines, black market economy Venezuela Venezuela (2003–Present) Strict price caps on essential goods and services Made some goods temporarily cheaper Severe shortages, black markets, hyperinflation, economic collapse Setting aside the obvious problem that when the price of a good is artificially suppressed you get less of it, a free and virtuous society simply cannot tolerate committees of government agents collectively deciding the correct price of things. This is textbook collectivist lunacy. If legislators believe that rent is too high, they have the burden to explain why they are the authority figure on what “too high” means. Maybe someone should let them know they ought to stop restricting Washington’s housing supply through an oppressive regulatory environment.   Washington lawmakers are not only providing the wrong answer, they aren’t even asking the right question. Instead of asking, “Why is rent so high,?”  lawmakers should be asking, “Why don’t we have enough housing?”  Prices are an effect, not a cause. Policies that delay or discourage housing development—such as burdensome zoning laws, impact fees, restrictive building codes, and excessive labor regulations—are the real drivers of high rents. If the goal is affordability, the answer isn’t price controls—it’s more housing supply.   Rent control is antithetical to a free and virtuous society. It fails to address any of the key factors driving housing affordability and supply. A developer seeking to build an apartment complex in Washington faces years of delays and millions in fees before a single unit is constructed. They must navigate multiple environmental, labor, and land use regulations, often involving ten or more government agencies. If lawmakers truly wanted to lower rent, they would focus on reducing barriers to construction rather than distorting the rental market.   The United States became one of the most prosperous nations on Earth by embracing free markets and competition. In contrast, countries that have doubled down on economically illiterate price controls have faced stagnation and decline. If Washington legislators are serious about making housing more affordable, they should look at the real causes of the crisis, not double down on a policy that has already failed for four millennia.   As the saying goes, “When you’re in a hole, stop digging.” Lawmakers ignore this lesson at their peril.

A state best known for Yellowstone and Bison may soon earn the reputation for sparking the legal fight that improves property rights for all Americans. While an out-of-control Wyoming government may seem like an oxymoron in a state renowned for its embrace of individual freedom, an ugly abuse of property rights has created an ongoing nightmare for one family.   Tom and Ayda Hamann of Cody have lived through a horror story that they hope will save other landowners throughout the United States from enduring the property destruction, physical injury and mental anguish wrought by government abuse.   It started in 2016, when Heart Mountain Irrigation District (HMID), the government entity that oversees 34,000 acres of land in their rural enclave in northwest Wyoming decided that it wanted to build a new road on their property based on an easement. The Hamanns told HMID that they were willing to work with it, but first wanted to see the easement. HMID did not produce it – could not, in fact, because the irrigation canals were built without government easements. HMID had for a long time used the road on the south side of their property to access for all of its operations without issue, so the Hamanns didn’t understand why a new one was needed that would require them to destroy fencing and other improvements on their 100-acre parcel.   In 2018, with the easement issue still unresolved, the Hamanns granted HMID limited access to their property to move a concrete bowl used to irrigate their neighbor’s property. Proclaiming he had, “More power than the sheriff,” HMID Manager Randy Watts and his crew tore down fences and an archway on the Hamann’s property, causing $10,000 worth of damage. He also hit Tom Hamann with an excavator bucket, which cracked a bone and herniated three discs in his neck and severely injured both shoulders. The strike also gave him a concussion, which he has never fully recovered from. Though no charges were filed, Watts was fired shortly after the incident according to the Hamanns.   Hamann, 65, said he gave up his physical therapist license because he was not able to pass continuing education classes following the attack. He also sold 40 head of cattle because he couldn’t physically take care of them anymore. He rarely drives and doesn’t like to go out anymore.  He wears earplugs when out in public because noise bothers him and said he has no short-term memory.   The worst part has been the depression. “A head injury is awful. It’s like having cancer, but you never die,” he said. “I would ask God why he did this to me. What have I done?”   Hamann sued HMID in state court for “inverse condemnation,” a process that allows property owners to seek compensation from the government when it damages or takes their property. It’s the opposite of eminent domain, by which the government pays property owners ahead of time to take their property. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution requires government to fairly compensate property owners when it takes or damages property.   Despite the well-documented evidence against HMID, the court found that it wasn’t liable because the board hadn’t explicitly asked Randy Watts in a public meeting to injure Tom Hamann or his property.   Businesses are regularly held liable for the actions of their employees even when they can prove that they provided training or direction that contradicts the employee’s actions. Government, just because it’s government, should not get a free pass.   Hamann said many people have thanked him for suing HMID and told him they didn’t have the financial ability to do so. Without the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), the lower court ruling would have stood.   But PLF took the case and appealed the district court’s ruling to Wyoming’s Supreme Court last month. Austin Waisanen, the Hamann’s lawyer, said he expects the case to go to trial in May or June. Federal precedent shows that the government doesn’t need to give express permission to employees in order for the government to be held liable for damaging or taking property. In Darby Development Co. v. United States  (2024), the Federal Circuit held that “even if an action by a government agent is unlawful, it will likely be deemed authorized for takings-claim purposes if it was done within the normal scope of the agent’s duties.”   The record establishes that Randy Watts regularly drove and used the excavator in the scope of his duties and was frequently allowed to work unsupervised and without specific instruction. As Waisanen argues in addition to the above issue, “The lower court’s application of the authorization rule—requiring Mr. Hamann to prove express authority—is incompatible with Wyoming’s heightened protection of property rights. Specifically, the Wyoming Constitution provides that property shall not be taken or damaged for public use.”   If they win, the Hamann’s hope to be compensated for their property losses. More importantly, Tom Hamann said he hopes to change state law to make it easier to sue the government. Waisanen said a successful outcome could impact eminent domain cases nationally to benefit property owners. But he said sovereign immunity laws that make it extremely difficult to sue government at all levels “have taken firm rooting in almost every state.”   Hopefully justice will prevail and Tom and Ayda’s long and trying ordeal will pave the way to make governments throughout the country abide by the rules they require of everyone else.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a powerful technology that can solve complicated problems and extend human abilities in most industries. But given the power of such potential, there is a responsibility to build AI to serve society, rather than crush it. That’s what makes Idaho’s new proposed Senate Bill 1067 so intriguing. It plans to prevent government bureaucracy from stunting the remarkable growth we’re witnessing in the AI sector. As with any amazing tool, we need to be good stewards of AI's potential. This bill provides the proper balance between not stifling innovation in its infancy and leaving room for important guardrails. One of the bill’s main points is simple but critical: AI is a type of personal expression. Just as the written word, art, and music all reflect human thought and creativity, so does the code that powers an AI system. The regulation of AI development could be as damaging as any free speech regulation. While legislation around the country recommends additional layers of red tape in developing and deploying AI, the legislation allows room for innovation without bureaucratic overreach. Heavy-handed government regulation over AI could significantly hinder research and advancement. Rather than giving these groups, including researchers, tech companies, and entrepreneurs the freedom to experiment and iterate, they could be mired in layers of compliance, approval processes, and arbitrary restrictions. Innovation only flourishes, when we allow creators to explore new concepts and develop solutions without fear of overregulation. Idaho’s decision to protect AI innovation by minimizing regulation is a win for technological advancement and economic prosperity. AI is also a “general purpose technology,” which is to say, it has the potential to affect almost every industry. Whether it’s increasing factory efficiency or changing how we talk about tax preparation, AI has limitless applications. The best way to maximize the benefits of this technology is to keep it open for everyone to develop and refine. As we celebrate the removal of unnecessary red tape, we also recognize that AI, like all powerful technologies, comes with some risks. The unregulated development of AI systems could result in biases in decision-making, violations of privacy, or even dangerous/illegal uses. The bill does not turn a blind eye to accountability. While it does prohibit regulating AI’s underlying algorithms or decision-making processes, it does not prevent transparency, ethics, or responsible deployment. At the hands of its creators, AI systems must not only be efficient but also ethical, accurate, and transparent in their operation. Senate Bill 1067 is a reasonable approach to establishing a framework that will protect innovation but also create a pathway for imposing accountability. By defining AI as a general-purpose technology and restricting unnecessary government regulation, the bill permits developers the freedom to innovate and evolve. Ultimately, the potential of AI is too important to be stifled by outdated thinking about regulations. The push to allow AI to thrive while ensuring sufficient oversight and accuracy checks is the right amount of protection without the risk of suffocating the promise of AI with overregulation.

It is rare to see hugs and tears on the floor of the Idaho legislature once a bill is passed. But the joy, in this case, was undeniable.    In a historic move, the Idaho Senate this week gave its stamp of approval to House Bill 93 – an education choice expansion that gives families another learning option. Moments before it passed, Senate Majority Leader Lori Den Hartog called it a “watershed moment” – something she and Representative Wendy Horman have been working on for years.   House Bill 93 is a measure that gives families who opt out of the public school system the option to take a $5,000 tax credit to help offset the cost of educating their children. It’s an idea that, while controversial, is still very simple. It returns the conversation over education to where it belongs – the parents and the children – rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.   It is not a voucher – as the money is directed at families rather than being a check written to a private school. It is fiscally responsible. With a cap of just $50 million, it is modest and separate from the state’s K-12 budget. In fact, comparatively speaking, it is just .0185% of the state’s total K-12 budget. Because of the budget cap, fewer than 10,000 students will be able to take advantage.   It includes no new homeschooling regulations, and has the majority support of Idahoans, according to Mountain States Policy Center’s recent Idaho Poll.     It follows a long line of research – 187 empirical studies, in fact – that show that choice can improve student outcomes.   It gives priority to families who need it most, who earn less than 300% of the federal poverty level.   A legal analysis shows the measure to be constitutionally sound – as it does not directly fund private schools, religious or otherwise. In any case, Idaho already crossed that private/religious funding rubicon with the Launch program.   Pending a signature from Governor Brad Little, Idaho will join more than 30 other states to offer education choice expansion options.   Now that the legislature has acted, it is time for all Idahoans to work together to make sure the program is successful and benefits all children.   It’s not as expansive as other proposals, and not as tame as ideas recently rejected. In fact, it was the just right approach that received approval from both houses of the legislature for the first time in Idaho history.   Not too hot. Not too cold. Goldilocks and the Three Bears likely approve.

The Idaho Senate has given final approval to House Bill 93 - legislation that provides a $5,000 tax credit for families who need education options outside of the public school system. 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. It now goes to Governor Brad Little's desk for approval. "Families win," MSPC President Chris Cargill said following the vote. "Lawmakers have seen the research and have responded in a historic way." On Sunday, President Trump gave a strong endorsement of the measure , which had previously been approved by the House of Representatives. H93 provides a $5,000 tax credit to qualifying families for educational expenses including private school tuition. Special needs students could qualify for $7,500 tax credits.   There is a cap on what would be available of $50 million, which is equal to just .0185% of the state’s public school budget .  It does not take any funding from public schools. It is universal (any family can apply) but priority will be given to low income families. Our exclusive Idaho Poll shows strong support for a $5,000 tax credit, with the majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents in Idaho in favor. "MSPC ideas were part of the discussion, as we provided testimony and research at the hearings in both the House and the Senate," Cargill said. Lawmakers frequently used MSPC data, including The incredible savings private and home school families are offering taxpayers and Answering the legal questions on expanding education choice . MSPC also produced various informational videos to educate the public on education choice, and the desire of families to have more options . The videos were watched more than one million times on Facebook, X and YouTube. At the beginning of the session, MSPC welcomed former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey to the Idaho State Capitol to talk about some of the successes of expanding choice options. "We feel honored to play a small role in the advancement of this idea," Cargill said. "But the real winners are the families of our state."

Note: This is a joint Mountain States Policy Center op-ed with William Duncan, a constitutional law fellow at Sutherland Institute. Among the flurry of executive orders issued by President Donald Trump in the first days of his term was the withdrawal of an unwelcome plan , the Lava Ridge Wind Energy Project , to place hundreds of wind turbines on public land in Idaho. That action received praise from Idaho state officials who have been tirelessly fighting the project, and it exemplifies an issue that is critical for states in the West. With the new Congress and administration fully in place, policymakers at the state and federal level should pursue substantive reforms to federal control of public lands. While the federal government owns tiny amounts of land in the Eastern states, it is the largest landowner in many Western states. Some of this land is used for appropriate national uses like military bases or national parks, but a l arge proportion is “unappropriated.” This means it is “sitting in limbo, inefficiently utilized, and horribly underserved because of the overwhelming volume of acreage.” The U.S. Constitution gives Congress authority to legislate for lands purchased for national purposes. It also gives Congress authority to “ dispose of ” federal lands. That, however, is not what is happening when the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) holds onto enormous tracts of land in states for no specific purpose. That land is funded by taxpayers, but any benefits it creates, like leases for various land uses, go to the federal government rather than rural communities and other potential beneficiaries like school systems. Last year, Utah attempted to wrest some control over the 22.8 million acres now controlled by BLM by bringing a lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court. In late December the court declined to take the case. This is not entirely surprising, since the court accepts exceedingly few such cases. The rejection of the case should be viewed as more procedural than a judgment on the merits. That dismissal does not resolve the underlying problem of disproportionate federal land management, and it should not be the last word. Utah or other states can still bring a challenge in a federal trial court that might work its way back to the Supreme Court. Really, though, the political branches of the federal government can, and should, do much to fix the problem. The president can continue to require restraint in taking and managing lands within the states. He can direct the BLM to work more closely with state and community officials and citizens who will be directly impacted by decisions on federal land management. The tragic destruction caused by recent wildfires in California is a reminder of how important this can be, and inadequate federal wildfire management has been a source of serious concern – indeed, existential concern – for communities in the West. More fundamentally, Congress should begin a process of reviewing the use of public lands to ensure that they are being used for bona fide national purposes, not just being held indefinitely to prevent state management. Land that is not needed for valid federal purposes could be appropriately disposed of in ways that would benefit local communities and states. Some worry that this would mean unrestrained development of lands that should be preserved for public uses. That is entirely mistaken. The states, accountable to their citizens, have powerful incentives to protect this land for the public and, in fact, have a great track record of managing public lands better than the federal government does. Congress can also use its disposal power to ensure that lands now owned by the national government will not be exploited. That would be more consistent with the Constitution and its system of federalism, which limits federal authority to “ few and defined ” responsibilities while reserving to the states and the people the bulk of day-to-day decision-making authority. That system serves a compelling purpose by ensuring that decisions that impact people are made by those who are accessible and responsive to their needs and who understand local realities. By contrast, disproportionate federal control of land use ensures that most decisions about the use of that land, and the effects of those decisions on people, will be made by unelected and distant federal officials. Utah’s effort to break loose a federal monopoly on federal lands should be the start, not the end, of the effort to restore responsiveness and local control in Western land management. States should demand this result.

Montana Representative Randyn Gregg recently introduced Joint House Resolution Number 12 , which requests that the U.S. Congress remove any requirements or obligations to purchase electric vehicles. President Trump recently repealed Biden’s Electric Vehicle Mandates  that were passed in 2021 that aimed to have 50% of all new vehicles sold in the U.S. by 2030 be zero-emission or electric.   This resolution (if adopted) gives numerous reasons why Montana applauds Trump’s actions. Below are some of the examples.   The most obvious in the resolution is that Montanans rely on gas-powered vehicles for personal, business, and recreational purposes. About 60% of petroleum consumption in Montana is due to transportation uses. It would take a massive shift to accomplish the previous goal of 50% of vehicle sales to be electric. Montana currently has less than 1% of registered vehicles being electric. It’s obvious that this sales shift would not take place if it weren’t for government intervention in Montana. If this influx does take place, it should be because of the consumer’s choice, not a federal mandate.   Another logistical reason is the average range for an EV is anywhere between 110 and 300 miles, and charging stations are rare across the state. Of the 60,500 stations across the country, only 120 of those are in Montana. As the 4th largest geographic state in the country, this shows that there is not the infrastructure needed to support any sort of large influx of EVs traveling on the roads.   Lastly, due to Montana’s rural terrain, there is a need for 4-wheel drive vehicles that can handle rough gravel roads and surfaces. Currently, there are very few electric vehicles that hold that capacity. Of those that are suited for off-road functions, the average price is roughly $78,868 . This is largely unaffordable for most citizens and would put a lot of blue-collar workers in a tough position. Due to its large agrarian workforce, there is a huge need for trucks, and SUV’s that can get around on a farm and haul around heavy materials. It is widely known that EVs don’t have nearly the same capacity to carry as much added weight due to their battery size. Specifically with trucks, a recent study by AAA  found that electric trucks lose more range than gas-powered trucks to a load in the bed. They tested the 2022 Ford F-150 lightning with a 1,400-pound load in the bed. They learned that of its 300-mile range, it could only last 210 miles which is a 24.5% range loss. Based off the U.S. Energy Department's estimates, the average gas-powered truck would only lose 14% of its fuel tank’s range with the 1,400-pound load. Over time, this 10% loss in range makes driving around an EV truck on a farm incredibly inefficient. The resolution makes the case that hard-working Montanans shouldn’t be punished this way.   This resolution brings up several good points. Every reason given in this bill to oppose a federal mandate of EV purchases could be applied to almost every state in the union. If a certain state wants to make its own standard, that is completely their decision. But every state has its own economy, geography, and demographics. Along with the hauling, charging, and logistical problems; a federal EV mandate takes the power away from the states.

The Idaho Senate will likely vote this week on final passage of an education choice bill that has now been endorsed by President Donald Trump.   In a Sunday afternoon tweet on Truth Social , the president gave his full backing to a bill introduced by Senators Lori Den Hartog, Scott Grow, Representatives Wendy Horman and Jason Monks, that would provide families with a tax credit of up to $5,000 for education expenses.   H93 has already passed the House of Representatives in Idaho , and has been approved by an Idaho Senate committee, paving the way for a full Senate vote this week.   "This bill, which has my complete and total support, must pass," the president wrote.   MSPC President Chris Cargill was asked to testify numerous times on the legislation , which has a cap on what would be available of $50 million, which is equal to just .0185% of the state’s public school budget .  It does not take any funding from public schools.   Our exclusive Idaho Poll shows strong support for a $5,000 tax credit, with the majority of Democrats, Republicans and Independents in Idaho in favor.   ADDITIONAL RESOURCES: The incredible savings private and home schooling families offer Idaho taxpayers Answering the legal questions on expanding education choice Homeschooling won't be hurt by education choice - here's the research

Idaho legislators are considering a bill that would require cities with more than 25,000 residents to run local elections by district rather than at-large. Senate Bill 1075 follows the policy path that has been vigorously pursued by the ACLU in Washington state and other states. Currently, any city with more than 100,000 residents in Idaho elects council members by district. But cities with fewer use an at-large process. Simply put, the entire population of these smaller cities can vote for every council member, whereas in larger cities, citizens are limited to voting for only council members in the district in which they live. While district elections can help cities have members who highlight issues from specific neighborhoods, there are drawbacks. For example, the smaller a city, the smaller a district, and the smaller the number of votes needed to become elected. For example, in a city with 25,000 residents, assuming half are registered to vote and there is 50% voter turnout, an at-large election would require a candidate to receive more than 3,000 votes. Whereas a district election could see a candidate elected with fewer than 1,000. A majority block could be elected with just 3,568 votes - or a quarter of the city's total registered voters. Type of election Total number of citizens Total registered to vote Voter turnout Voters in each of seven districts Votes needed to win Total votes needed to secure majority (4/7) At large 25,000 12,500 50% NA 3,125 12,500 District 25,000 12,500 50% 1,785 892 3,568 Larger cities that have kept at-large elections have often been sued for allegedly violating the rights of minorities, who can be outvoted in a city-wide election versus a district election. However, research from the economics department at the University of California has shown that "minorities are likely to be better off when there are at-large elections." Senate Bill 1075 has not yet been scheduled for a public hearing. When it does, it will be important to determine whether there is a specific policy challenge the legislation is seeking to address, or whether it is an answer in search of a problem.

Navigating bureaucratic red tape can feel like being lost in a maze. Waiting on answers, wondering what other paperwork is needed, hoping for replies, and experiencing little to no customer service is often the story associated with any bureaucratic permitting process. The disorienting permitting pathway faced by most economic development projects causes delays, cost increases, or failure and termination of projects.   Governor Little of Idaho issued an Executive Order on January 24th, addressing this concern with permitting delays. Executive Order No. 2025-02  is the Idaho Strategic Permitting, Efficiency, and Economic Development (SPEED) Act. The order is designed to improve the efficiency of permitting and approval timelines, increase collaboration between government agencies and stakeholders, and identify areas of improvement within Idaho’s regulatory framework.   The SPEED Act will create a council to support the goals of permitting efficiency, transparency, and reform. The council’s stated responsibilities are: Improve early consultation between Idaho’s permitting agencies and project proponents; Design, implement, and facilitate a coordinated permitting process that will improve transparency, predictability, and timeliness for certain projects; Promote efficiency and transparency through the publication of project-specific timetables with completion timelines for all State authorizations and environmental reviews; Increase accountability through consultation and reporting on projects; and Identify sections of statute or administrative rule that are duplicative, unnecessary, or unreasonably prolong the State’s permitting process.   As the least regulated state in the nation, the continued improvement of government efficiency in Idaho is praiseworthy. If the council effectively meets its goals, the improved permitting process will attract valuable projects, creating jobs and improving the economic growth and strength of the Idaho economy.   One item the council should consider is how to achieve transparency in the permitting process. Mountain States Policy Center recently published a report on regulatory reform highlighting an innovative approach in Virginia concerning permitting transparency that can serve as an example. Virginia tested a small-scale approach to the permit transparency dashboard with their Department of Environmental Quality and was able to add six more state agencies in June 2024.   The Virginia Permit Transparency (VPT) website allows the public to search for permit applications and the associated details of location and responsible agencies, along with detailing the timeline since submission, how long a step in the process may take, and the expected completion date. Before the adoption of this program by Virginia’s DEQ the average processing time of 339 days per permit. Since the platform was implemented by DEQ the wait time should be no more than 255 days.   Governor Youngkin of Virginia said the website, “reaffirms our ongoing commitment to enhancing government transparency and ensuring it serves all Virginians effectively.” The VPT website is under the responsibility of Virginia’s Office of Regulatory Management which is striving towards a 25% reduction in regulatory requirements and is on track to achieve this goal. The VPT website has been a valuable addition to achieving their objectives and improving the Virginia economy.   Idaho’s constant striving towards government efficiency and regulatory reduction serves as an example to the rest of the nation. If Idaho combines an electronic permit processing tracker, that shows where permits are at in the maze, with the reforms included in the SPEED Act, it will be easier for entrepreneurs, government agencies, and stakeholders to create new opportunities for Idaho.

If you check any local school district budget, you will see three main sources of money: federal, state and local funds. State funding can make up 60-75% of a district’s budget, depending on the state in which you live. In Idaho, state funds are distributed based on a mechanism called “support units.” It’s a complex formula that takes into account attendance, grade bands, school size and type. In other words, it’s about the system much more than about the student. A new proposal seeks to change that. MSPC's Chris Cargill testifies on Idaho's S1096. Introduced by Sen. Jim Woodward and supported by Superintendent of Public Instruction Debbie Critchfield, SB 1096  would fund schools using a student-focused weighted formula instead of spending money based on the “support units.” This is somewhat like changing funding to a block grant focused on students giving schools more flexibility instead of using a complex and overly scripted funding focus on a “system.” This follows the principle of the education money following the child. According to the statement of purpose for SB 1096 : “This legislation changes the distribution of discretionary funding to follow the student. The distribution is weighted based on verified student characteristics to recognize actual costs associated with the needs of different students.” Superintendent Critchfield recently wrote an op-ed regarding this proposal. She said : “In Idaho, about 60% of school funding comes from the state. The rest is a combination of local and federal funds. State funds are distributed by assigning districts and charters a specific number of ‘support units’ based on a complex formula that accounts for attendance, grade bands, school size and type . . . my proposed change is simple: send the dollars out based on the students that each district serves. This means every district or charter would get a portion of their budget based on the characteristics of that community’s students. I’m specifically referring to kids in special education, those who are economically disadvantaged, at-risk or gifted and talented. Under this new model we can have a budget that aligns with student needs rather than one built on averages or what a neighboring district or charter looks like.” The Reason Foundation is among the advocates for a student-focused funding model for public schools. Reason wrote : “Weighted student formula is a student-driven rather than program-driven budgeting process. It goes by several names including results-based budgeting, student-based budgeting, ‘backpacking’ or fair student funding. In every case, the meaning is the same: dollars rather than staffing positions follow students into schools. In many cases, these resources are weighted based on the individual needs of the student.” Reason also created this chart  to explain the different funding models: SB 1096 starts the conversation to refocusing Idaho’s education spending on what’s most important: the student. In all cases, education spending should follow the child, whether that be in the traditional public school system, public charter schools, or providing parents more options with education choice programs .

The state of Idaho is moving closer to adopting an expansion of education choice. Whether that happens via a tax credit, Education Savings Account or some other mechanism, one thing is certain: it's not going to harm the state's homeschooling community. It's a concern perhaps more prominent in Idaho than any other state, as Idaho is consistently ranked among the top states for homeschooling. That is something to be proud of, and policymakers should ensure the state stays that way. The only bill to pass committees in both chambers and be approved in at least one is House Bill 93 . This $5,000 tax credit makes clear that it does not come with strings attached for homeschoolers who may want to take advantage of the program. And those homeschooling families who are even remotely concerned have the option to simply not sign up for the program. Still, there are fears, with some calling education choice a "threat." Families that we recently interviewed disagree. So, too, does the research. The Johns Hopkins Homeschool Research Lab completed a thorough analysis of education choice and whether policy changes in a state including expansion of choice led to any harm for homeschooling families. The answer was an unequivocal "no." Researchers write: "We find that increased homeschool student access to local public school offerings does not appear to have negatively impacted homeschool policy. We also find no evidence that public funding of private school choice has impacted homeschool policy. Indeed, we find that overall, homeschool regulation has decreased over time." This trend has been made clear as states have expanded their choice offerings. Money is not the ticket to a homeschooler’s heart—freedom is. But money is a neutral tool that may produce greater control or freedom depending on the criteria attached to its use. The purpose of education choice is to give parents the means to choose the education method that best suits the needs of their individual child, not to bring the child under the regulation and purview of the state. It should be simple, clear, understandable, and place as much of the decision-making power as possible with parents.

Have you ever tried to read your local school district budget? Districts are required to produce budgets - and make them public. But it's a maze of numbers and jargon that most citizens cannot understand. Even some lawmakers have difficulty concluding if a school district is spending money properly. Idaho’s largest school district, the West Ada School District, has a budget that can be found online, but it is 336 pages long and includes six different funds and 36 different programs. In Montana, the Billings Public School district is the state’s largest. Finding its budget on the district’s website is nearly impossible. Unfortunately, transparency doesn’t mean much if it’s not understandable. It is for these reasons that Mountain States Policy Center has proposed the Public School Transparency Act . This MSPC idea would require all public school districts, both on the first page of their budget and also on the front page of the district’s main website, to clearly report six simple things: 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 & percentage of total dollars allocated to average classroom Average administrator salary & benefits Average teacher salary & benefits Ratio of administrators to teachers to students   Very little extra work would be needed to provide this data and make it assessable on paper and online. Most districts already have it hidden somewhere in their budget documents. They know where to look, whereas parents and taxpayers can get lost.   Parents and taxpayers may see this data and conclude their school districts need more resources. Others may see it and believe that not enough is being done to spend money in the classroom. Regardless, the community will have a broader sense of the results being achieved, and what – if any – changes need to be made. Education leaders like Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction Debbie Critchfield have told MSPC they support the concept. “It’s a positive for our schools if the communities they serve understand how tax dollars are being spent," Critchfield said. "Let’s face it, school budgets tend to be complex and this is a step that helps simplify the way they’re communicated publicly.”

Enrollees in the Medicaid health insurance program have never had a work requirement to receive the entitlement. Idaho House Bill 138  would add a work requirement in Medicaid for those individuals who are physically able. Some background is helpful to understand the context of the bill. Congress passed the original Medicaid entitlement in 1965 as a health insurance safety net for the most vulnerable low-income people in the United States. These individuals include the poor, parents with children, the disabled, and those needing long-term care. Medicaid is a pure welfare plan financed by both state and federal taxpayers. Although Medicaid began with a very limited enrollment, the program has exploded and financially is one of the largest budget items for every state in the union. The original program was set up such that the federal government would match the financing with states in a 50/50 percent arrangement. The federal government gradually increased its spending percent. For example, it currently pays 68 percent of the original Medicaid program costs in Idaho. The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, became law in 2010, with most benefits beginning in 2014. After litigation all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, the law was amended such that states could decide for themselves whether to expand Medicaid to any able-bodied 18 to 64 year old person. The incentive is that the federal government would pay 90 percent of the financing of the expanded program. Idaho is one of 40 states that chose to expand Medicaid under Obamacare. State officials unfortunately look at the Medicaid program as “free” federal money. Unlike other state budget items, for every state dollar legislators spend on Medicaid, they get at least one matching federal dollar. Of course, state and federal taxpayers are the same individuals, families, and businesses. The Medicaid program is one of the federal government’s largest non-discretionary spending programs. Inflation adjusted spending the first year of Medicaid was $10 billion compared to $900 billion for fiscal year 2023. In other words, Medicaid spending has dramatically increased far beyond inflation alone. There has never been a federal work requirement to receive Medicaid benefits. However, the first Trump administration encouraged states to seek federal waivers and institute their own work requirements. Thirteen states had work requirements approved, but only Arkansas actually established a plan that had the consequence of losing Medicaid for non-compliance. Either courts or the Biden administration rescinded all the approved waivers, with the exception of Georgia which won its own court battle . Many states, including Idaho, are now seeking a work requirement waiver from the second Trump administration. Spending on Medicaid in Idaho is revealing . In 2016, Idaho taxpayers paid $2.10 billion on the Medicaid program. The state expanded the entitlement as allowed under Obamacare in 2018. By 2019, the state spent $2.45 billion, which grew to $4.68 billion by 2024. Obviously, enrollment in the program increased, but the burden on Idaho taxpayers almost doubled in those eight years adjusted for inflation. In a recent poll from the Mountain States Policy Center, 63 percent of Idaho residents favor some type of work or community service requirement for physically able adults as a condition to receive Medicaid. This is not exactly a partisan issue with 71 percent of Republican respondents and 58 percent of Democrat respondents favoring a work requirement. Currently, 68 percent of adults in Idaho’s Medicaid program work either full or part-time. This is higher than the national average of 64 percent. Medicaid, as it is currently organized, is a pure entitlement. If a person qualifies, they can enroll and taxpayers will cover their health insurance. It seems only logical and fair that if an individual can physically work, they should be required to do some type of job or community service to receive the welfare program. With a favorable Trump administration, Idaho officials should seriously consider the proposed work requirement in HB 138 and apply for a Medicaid waiver.

The Idaho Legislature has an opportunity to investigate the factors contributing to rising housing costs and limited supply. The Senate recently adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 103  sponsored by Senator Alison Rabe, which would form a legislative interim committee on housing. The committee is tasked with examining the impact of local land use regulations, evaluating city comprehensive plans and zoning, and finally identifying opportunities to reduce building regulatory costs and wait times, to meet Idaho’s growing development needs.   The resolution reads:   “WHEREAS, Idaho has a unique opportunity to proactively address housing challenges by studying regulatory impacts and developing actionable, locally appropriate solutions. This approach will position the State as a leader in addressing housing affordability while respecting Idaho’s values of fiscal responsibility, local control, and reduced red tape.”    Idaho’s rising housing costs and affordability crisis are of growing concern. All of the western states are struggling to address affordability, and Idaho has placed within the top 5 of least affordable states since February 2020, recently placing second behind Montana in 2024. The housing crisis is real, but there are many different factors depending on the type of housing needed.     The recent 2025 Idaho Public Policy Survey by Boise State University found that housing is the 4th most concerning issue  among Idaho respondents. Housing ranks behind education, jobs and the economy, and healthcare, with 64.1% saying housing was important for the legislature to address. Almost half of Idahoans answered affirmatively to the question , “Does the cost of your housing place a financial strain on you and your family today?” With renters, non-white respondents, Canyon County residents, and those 45 and younger saying the strain was more apparent.   With all of this background in mind, the effort of Senator Rabe to form a legislative interim committee on housing is a worthwhile step in addressing Idaho’s housing attainability crisis. Mountain States Policy Center met with Senator Rabe earlier this year to discuss the benefits of forming a workgroup to address housing concerns and the need to sunset any new provisions.   The committee is modeled after Montana Governor Gianforte’s Housing Task Force . Created by executive order in 2022, the workgroup met for two years to discuss the housing issues that constrained supply and hurt affordability. The task force provided a roadmap for lawmakers to follow to have a robust discussion of housing needs and develop policy solutions that actually worked to address the crisis.   The bipartisan work generated by the committee was dubbed the Montana Miracle, as both sides of the aisle supported “Yes In My Backyard” (YIMB) legislation. The final report  in June 2024, identified 23 recommendations that can serve as a model for future legislation.   Idaho can learn from the Montana model by: Inviting a broad coalition to participate (the study had over 25 participants from industry, local and state government, finance, and policy and housing non-profits); Develop recommendations addressing various themes (i.e. regulations, planning, construction, financial); Discuss every recommendation thoroughly including rationale, barriers, strategies, next steps and legislative changes needed, and dissenting opinions; Including a sunset clause which only allows the continuation upon another legislative approved renewal. The current form of Senate Concurrent Resolution 103 already includes many of these guidelines, and the final version if approved should ensure these characteristics are still intact.   We are closely following this resolution. If it passes, the legislature is strongly urged to ensure that the workgroup discussion is robust, bipartisan, and Idaho-specific, concluding with actionable recommendations. Last year we published a study looking at the cost of building homes and the regulatory framework increasing the costs and the potential policies that can help increase supply and make homes more affordable. SCR 103 could help build the blueprint to address these problems.   Idaho desperately needs solutions to the housing attainability crisis, identifying these policy changes is step one and something this workgroup can address. But the next step is even more important. Idaho legislators should work to find and adopt policy solutions that fix, not bandage the housing attainability crisis.

A proposal in Washington state seeks to end the delegation of rulemaking to unelected regulators in California concerning auto standards. HB 1117  attempts to   remove this questionable delegation of authority related to California motor vehicle emissions standards to help generate new transportation revenue for the state by reducing administration burdens on the people. The intent section for HB 1117 notes: "The delegation of authority related to California motor vehicle emissions standards has caused unintended consequences. Individuals have not been able to register vehicles that meet federal manufacturing standards that they own . . . The state benefits when every vehicle that operates on the public roads is legally registered and when government operates in an efficient manner. The legislature intends to improve the lives of all of the people who had to seek an exemption and all of the workers who do not want to tell people they cannot register their vehicles because of California motor vehicle emissions standards."   As it stands, Washington State is on track to cease the sale of large trucks and motorhomes powered by diesel or gasoline as a consequence of blindly following California standards. Representative Andrew Barkis recently introduced HB 1117 to repeal this delegated authority to California regulators. The bill mentions that the Department of Licensing had to grant 407,541 exemptions from September 2023 to September of 2024. This legislation aims to both reduce the red tape, as well as ensure transportation revenue comes in through vehicle sales tax.   In 2020, the Washington State Legislature passed SB 5811, which adopted the emissions standard set forth by the California Air Resources Board  (CARB). With the way CARB set up its model, any legislative body that chooses to assume these standards must do so in its entirety and cannot be modified. The legislature was given the option of choosing between the federal admissions standards or California’s and ended up choosing California’s as they claim it aligned more closely with Washington’s goals.   Involved in the CARB model are the advanced clean truck standards. This requires manufacturers to increase the number of zero-emission vehicles they sell in a given state with target percentages between 4%-7%. Starting next year, zero-emission vehicles are required to make up 7% of all Class 2b-3 truck and Class 7-8 tractor sales, and Class 4-8 truck sales are required to be 11% zero-emission vehicles. By 2023, the sales percentage must be 30% for Class 2b-3 trucks, and Class 7-8 tractors, and 50% for Class 4-8 trucks. In April of 2023, CARB also voted on its advanced clean fleets rule, which will make all new medium and heavy-duty vehicles sold and registered to be zero emission by 2036, and all trucks to be zero-emission by 2042.   In these CARB standards, there is a  specific emphasis  on the chassis of the vehicle undercarriage that braces the weight and running gear. For RV’s, consumers won’t be able to register Diesel Class Aa and most Super C Diesel motor homes if the chassis on it was built after January 1, 2025. Manufacturers can’t sell dealers in Washington any diesel motorhomes that have a chassis built after January 1, 2025. These new rules are due to major chassis manufacturing companies such as Freightliner, and Spartan, being unable to meet emissions requirements put forward by CARB that a percentage of their chassis to be EV.   Will Rogers, the General Manager at Poulsbo RV in Everett stated : “We’re trying to keep 2024 chassis available for next year so people can still buy new diesel vehicles, This may just increase demand for used vehicles, which will affect our business." It was also reported by The RV Industry Association that some manufacturers are already withdrawing from CARB-regulated markets including Washington State.   It's important to note that a major aspect of HB 1117 aims to maintain and increase revenue to the Washington State Department (WSDOT) of Transportation. As it stands, the WSDOT collects a third of 1% of tax accrued by vehicle sales. If the CARB policies remain, there will be a sharp decline in sales of expensive motor vehicles such as RV’s, motorhomes, and large trucks. While supporters of CARB may suggest that these regulations will decrease the carbon emissions put out by Washington State, there is also a real risk of losing revenue and proper funds to build infrastructure for transportation projects such as bridges, roads, etc. Currently, the transportation budget faces a $1 billion deficit as the costs of recent projects have been underestimated. Representative Jake Fey chairs the House Transportation Committee and admits that they are looking for new ways to generate revenue for transportation projects. Repealing CARB standards for Washington would both increase revenue from the continued vehicle sales and keep business owners and consumers happy. If it’s not repealed, it’s hard to see how these CARB standards wouldn’t put the transportation budget even further into the red.   Another major objection to the CARB standards is the principle of federalism. The Washington State Legislature must have the independence and authority to create its own carbon emission standards. Each state's ecosystem is different, and each state’s electorate is different. It is naïve and irresponsible to assume that Washingtonian's concerns line up perfectly with California’s.   The Citizen Action Defense Fund filed a motion  for summary judgment in a suit brought by two members of the legislature making this exact point. Senator Mike Padden and Representative Chris Corry are plaintiffs in the court action challenging the legislation that allowed Ecology to adopt rules that would be passed by an unelected board in California. Former Senator Mike Padden commented : “We must protect the sovereignty of the state of Washington. Washington state’s elected legislators must make laws in Washington State not legislators from the state of California. Senate Bill 5811 weakens our sovereignty as a state. That is why this lawsuit is so vitally important."   Ultimately, the consumer should be able to decide whether they’d like to buy an EV, hybrid, gas, or diesel vehicle. It is a win-win scenario when the state can generate proper revenue, citizens have actual representation for the rules they are subjected to, vehicle businesses can continue to sell and manufacture, and buyers hold the power to make their own vehicle decisions.

Idaho legislators are adding to their impressive regulatory reform efforts with the introduction of House Bill 107 , the Occupational Licensing Reform Act. Instead of abandoning licensure requirements to the unelected bureaucrats, HB 107 requires all new licensures to be expressly authorized by statute, establishes universal licensing practices, and requests a report to the legislature that would outline needed changes to come into compliance.   The main objective of the proposed legislation is to bring all new licensure requirements under the express authority of statute, instead of discretionary rulemaking. House Bill 107 reads:   “Pursuant to this policy: (1)   No new licensure of a person to practice a profession or occupation may be created by an administrative rule or policy in the absence of express statutory authorization; and (2)   By July 1, 2026, all licensure fees shall be established in statute or rule.”   The act also allows for universal licensing practice, meaning a licensed professional can perform any act aligning with their education, training, and experience. This new section is designated as Section 67-9407. Universal licensing practice will allow for a professional to function in the full capacity of their role, while still preserving the authority of the licensing board or commission to ensure compliance with applicable state laws and regulations.   A third component of the bill requests a report to the legislation regarding compliance actions, reciprocity statutes, and modifications needed to legislative language to ensure full compliance with sections 67-9407, 67-9409, and 67,9414. A similar report was due five years ago, and HB 107 would repeal and replace the original request. The licensing authority shall have until January 1, 2026, to deliver the report.   Occupational licensing reform is a critical component of maintaining a free market and reducing barriers to entry. Despite, Idaho’s many efforts to reduce government bureaucracy, occupational licensing reform in Idaho still needs some work. Idaho ranked 28th nationally in 2023, with the first being the most burdensome. Kansas has the fewest legal barriers, with 30 less than Idaho.   Why has non-universal occupational licensing grown from 5% to 22% since the 1950s? The answer has little to do with quality improvement in services and everything to do with excessive government overreach. Research has shown that occupational licensing decreases the quality of service, increases prices, decreases employment, and hurts low to middle-income earners the most. A certification from the government doesn’t change the quality of skills a person possesses. But service review websites like Yelp and Angie will inform customers very quickly if the service is acceptable.   The government cannot play the role of gatekeeper to high- and poor-quality service providers, but customer feedback can. It is time for the government to recognize the unnecessary nature of many occupational licensing requirements and get out of the way of the revitalizing energy of free market interactions, which strengthen local economies. This proposed legislation will empower Idaho legislators with the needed tools to reduce the occupational licensing burdens still existing in the state.   By requiring statutory authority for new licenses, permitting universal licensing practices, and requesting a report outlining compliance needs the legislature would be able to remove unneeded bureaucratic red tape from the already complicated process of starting a new career or business.

Though time is said to heal all wounds, the scars from the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns remain fresh as the nation experienced executive overreach at the federal and state levels. It is important going forward for a proper check and balance to exist. The legislative branch must remain firmly in control of policy, even during times of an emergency.   There’s no question that in a real emergency, governors need broad powers to act fast. Legislative bodies take time to assemble, so they can temporarily transfer their powers to the executive in an emergency. But when problems do last for extended periods, it is the responsibility of legislators to debate the risks, benefits, and trade-offs of various long-term approaches.   Lawmakers may end up passing the very policies a governor would prefer, but they do it after deliberation as representatives of the people and do it in a public process. It’s the legislature, not the executive branch, that should make the laws we live under, and the executive – no matter the state or the person – is supposed to implement only laws passed by the legislature.   Gubernatorial emergency powers allow a rapid government response to emergencies, disasters, or threats. In the event of an emergency, there may be a need to enhance coordination, deploy the National Guard, reallocate state and federal funds, and even modify or suspend state statutes, regulations, and legal concerns. When actual disaster and emergency strikes the government’s ability to deploy resources quickly, efficiently, and unhindered is imperative to the successful management of the disaster.   Every state grants the executive branch, in the form of the governor, the authority to declare an emergency, be it a natural disaster or public health emergency. State statutes vary addressing the type of declaration, limits on the order, and legislative involvement. It is in these nuances that states vary significantly in the discretion granted to the governor and in many cases circumnavigate the lawmaking responsibility of the legislature.    There should be an ability for the executive to have a rapid response to actual emergencies. This awesome power, however, should be subject to meaningful legislative oversight.  A comparison of our region shows that the states of Washington, Oregon, and Wyoming are very liberal in the use of emergency declarations. Limited use of emergency powers protects the impact of the clause and the ability of governors to make a difference in an emergency, instead of issuing statements that are routine acknowledgments without the meaningful tools and initiative to change the outcome of a disaster.   After multiple years of enduring an executive with little checks on emergency power, Washington state finally seems interested in adopting reforms. Washington is one of only four states that bestows unilateral authority to the governor in the declaration and maintenance of emergencies. Newly elected Governor Bob Ferguson indicated his interest in some reforms by saying: “Senator Braun – I hope to work with you to adopt reasonable limits on the Governor’s emergency powers. We can do that together.”   Some states in our region have put needed restraints on the executive branch to respect the balance of power shared with the legislature and judicial branches. However, for all of the states, there are varying degrees of improvement needed. Here are some of the best practices that should be required for the use of emergency orders: Expire in a limited amount of time, unless ratified by the legislature; Be narrowly tailored for compelling health and safety reasons, and be limited in duration, applicability, and scope; Be subject to expedited judicial review, particularly when constitutional rights are at stake; Signed by the governor for statewide orders that infringe constitutional rights; Sunset quickly if the legislature is not in session or called into session, followed by a limited period for the legislature to ratify the order; Cannot be reissued by governors if the orders have expired or the legislature rejected.   Lawmakers across the country should assess their state’s emergency power clauses and adopt the needed changes to maintain the separation of power. An excellent exercise for lawmakers is to consider the future level of comfort that would be felt if an individual of complete political polarity from them held the executive branch. Would the separation of powers still be respected and maintained?   Executive and legislative officials need to make changes regarding who declares an emergency, the branch responsible for terminating the emergency, how long it can last, and the authority granted to the Governor. Future emergencies will happen and it is imperative the ability to respond to disasters can go unhindered by red tape and roll out with expedited cooperation. However, no imagined future emergency should be used as an excuse to allow the continuance of statutes with the potential of long-term damage to the separation of powers.   Policymaking should never be done by one person behind closed doors, even during an emergency. The number of days an emergency declaration remains in effect is less important than the requirement that the policies imposed be subject to legislative review and consent. Lawmakers must ensure that emergency powers statutes have this proper balance of power before the next emergency is declared.