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

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

Voters in Montana could soon see a flurry of state constitutional amendments on their ballots. Lawmakers have proposed more than 50 constitutional changes, but it's likely when all is said and done less than a dozen will be put forward to voters. Still, nearly a dozen is significant. House Bill 551 changes the state's constitutional right to bear arms by selecting a current section of the state constitution that deals with concealed weapons. There's also House Bill 372, which would add a constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap. Some of the more controversial proposals deal with the state Supreme Court. One deals with term limits for public officials and judges. Another proposal is an amendment to change the way Montana's Supreme Court justices are chosen. Rather than a statewide election, they would be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. There is not necessarily a right or wrong way for judges to be selected. In fact, there are 25 different selection systems. Montana, Idaho and Washington are three of just 13 states that elect judges in non-partisan elections. We will know in just a few weeks which constitutional amendments have a chance of actually making it to the ballot. The next deadline is the first week of April.

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

The Idaho Senate has followed the House and passed a major property tax cut bill. It may be short term relief, but questions remain about the long term fix. Lawmakers admitted compromises had to be made, and they didn't necessarily like everything in the bill. "This is a merging of two ideas," Senator Doug Ricks said before the 32-3 vote. "It hasn't been an easy process to negotiate. This will be the largest property tax relief in Idaho state history." The bill will provide immediate relief. Sen. Ricks says the average property tax bill will see 15-20% savings. HB 292 is broken into three years: 2023 - Up to $355,000,000 2024 - Up to $272,000,000 2025 - Up to $332,000,000 Most of the relief in the first year comes from the state's general fund surplus. In the second year, 4.5% of what the state collects from sales taxes would be diverted to lower property taxes via a credit. Finally, the bill increases the number of people who would qualify for the state's property tax relief program (also known as the "circuit breaker.") Homeowners will know where the reductions come from. The legislation says property tax bills will indicate the savings with text that reads “tax relief appropriated by the Legislature.” The measure also removes the March date that school districts can use for elections, meaning that elections can only be held in May, August and November. Part of the legislation also distributes money from the state to school districts for the purposes of lowering school bond and levy burdens. Property tax relief has been built into Idaho’s property tax system for decades. Beginning in 1980, homeowners received a property tax exemption up to 50% of the value of their home, originally capped at $10,000. This exemption was deducted from the assessed value of the home, while the remainder was then the taxable value of the property. In 2006, Idaho began to rely upon the Federal Housing Price Index to set the exemption amount for property taxes and this number fluctuated with the housing market. In 2016, the Idaho legislature voted to cap the property tax exemption at $100,000 (which later increased to $125,000). These changes may help reduce the cost for property owners in the short term, but will they stop overspending at the local level in the long run? It remains to be seen, but some state officials have laid some of the blame of higher property taxes on local governments that continue to spend, and the taxpayers who keep approving new local tax measures.

The legislature exists to make the best policies for sometimes complex issues while representing the will of the people. This is why detailed bills go through a public hearing, committee markup, floor debate and amendments before passage and starting the process over again in the other house. What doesn’t happen in the legislature is a one sentence bill asking simplistic questions for important policy with many interconnecting parts. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what “advisory votes” can often be. If lawmakers want to really know what voters think about a particular proposal they should put the actual policy on the ballot, with all the details, in a binding referendum, not ask voters to weigh in on a one sentence soundbite without the details of what is on the table. If lawmakers are uncertain about a particular policy, rather than use an incomplete advisory vote, they can further study the question using actual facts and data to help inform the public debate at a future time. This is why lawmakers should avoid an advisory vote concerning the current debate on Education Savings Accounts (ESA) and instead continue the detailed, public, and deliberative legislative process on the various proposals and examples of this educational choice policy from across the country. Last Friday, however, some Idaho lawmakers voted to introduce a bill that would place an advisory measure on the Idaho ballot in 2024 asking voters “should the state of Idaho direct or appropriate public tax dollars to private schools?” Pretty simplistic – and an incomplete picture to paint for voters about education choice options. Some lawmakers still appear to be confused about what an ESA is. Throughout hearings over the past ten days, they continually referred to education choice legislation as “ESA vouchers.” The problem is there’s no such thing as an “ESA voucher.” Most of the Idaho legislative session has featured debates about Education Savings Accounts – not vouchers. And they are very different. An ESA allows parents to use a portion of state funding on a variety of education services. Yes, it can include private school tuition, but it can also include tutoring, special needs services, curriculum, mental health treatment and much more - so long as it is for an educational purpose. So why not a ballot measure about tutoring, or special needs services, curriculum or mental health treatment? Maybe there should be a question about funding students, instead of funding a system? Most of the proposals have suggested creating a separate budget item to fund an ESA. And, if approved, the per-student funding in public schools would likely increase, as proposals have included 20% of a student’s funds being put into the local school district – even if students don’t go there. Should we ask whether voters want to increase the per-student funding – without any context? Instead of placing a simplistic question on the ballot this fall, legislators should opt for an interim legislative study on existing ESA programs across the country. This could be done by an unbiased source – perhaps the state Controller or Legislative Audit Division – and could be available by the time the next session begins. Lawmakers could make their request specific – getting much-needed answers to questions that could determine a way forward for education choice in Idaho. It is likely lawmakers will consider whether to advance the ballot question bill to the full House sometime next week. The pending action is a bit ironic considering lawmakers in the same committee refused a hearing on a bill that would have allowed Education Savings Accounts. But that was before they actually decided to hear the bill – and vote it down – about a week later. See, context does matter.

If you've been following the MSPC Legislative Tracker, you know that lawmakers across the region have introduced more than 4,000 new laws in 2023 legislative sessions. Some are important, including a state's official operating budget. Others? Well, let's just say that a state doesn't necessarily need to have an official dinosaur. As we previously noted, the number of bills introduced in Idaho this year was on track with previous sessions. Washington's bill introductions fell a bit, while Montana's have increased dramatically. How many of those proposed laws actually make it through the process? It depends on the state. In Idaho, for example, lawmakers introduced 635 pieces of legislation - with 338 (53%) becoming law. That's the lowest percentage of the past eight legislative sessions. In Montana, lawmakers have just about wrapped up their work. They are likely to finish their legislative session with the lowest percentage of bills becoming law in quite some time. And in Washington, lawmakers pushed just 18% of bills across the finish line - the lowest percentage since the 2017 legislative session. (The legislative sessions in Washington work on bienniums, so the 2023-24 percentage could change depending on what happens next January-March). There are several lessons here. One, lawmakers are introducing more legislation and, two, just because a bill is introduced doesn't mean it will become law. Still, the introduction of a bill takes time and taxpayer resources. It can also lay the groundwork for future legislative proposals.

The Idaho Senate today passed SB 1161, an expansion of the state’s Empowering Parents program. The vote was 19-15-1. It now heads to the House. Here’s what SB 1161 includes: Expansion of the Empowering Parents to include “micro grants” of $1,000 per student to be used for “eligible education expenses” Addition of transportation to and from a facility where education program is offered as an “eligible” expense Addition of “tuition grant” of $6,000 that can be used for academic instruction, both traditional tuition and/or for the hiring of a certified teacher for a micro-school There are some limitations. First, the bill makes it clear the money is subject to appropriation by the legislature, meaning it’s not open-ended. Second, priority is given to students who belong to a family with a gross income under $60,000. If funds are still available, priority is given to students belonging to families with less than $75,000. And if funds are still available after that, money is distributed on a first-come, first-serve basis. Funds would have to be spent within two years after they are awarded. Micro grants per family are capped at $3,000. And the tuition grants can be given to no more than 2,000 students. The cost of the bill is $30 million for the ongoing micro grants, as well as $12 million for the tuition grants for five years. Because the program is labeled a “pilot,” the bill requires the legislature to review the tuition grant process again before the 2028 legislative session. The bill follows many of the recommendations made in our study Education Choice Improves Outcomes. While it doesn't go as far as some other proposals, it is a positive step in the right direction and is a small victory for families.

The Montana House is advancing legislation that would more than double the amount of donations that could be accepted for both the Student Scholarship Organization Credit and the Innovative Educational Program Tax Credit. HB 408 easily passed the Montana House this week. These innovative programs allow for flexibility for families seeking educational options for children. We have detailed how tax credit scholarships can be an effective tool in advancing education choice and improving outcomes. Tax credit scholarship programs give families greater access to high-quality private schools by providing incentives to assist in expanding the opportunity to more students. Scholarship tax credit programs create new pools of funding so that children can receive scholarships to attend the private schools of their parents’ choice. Corporations and individuals make private donations to nonprofit organizations that provide scholarships to eligible children. In return, the corporations and individuals receive a state income tax credit. There are 21 scholarship tax credit programs operating across the country, and research has demonstrated that these programs are positive for student achievement and save money for state and local governments. The reason for expansion in Montana has clearly been the demand. Since a similar bill passed in 2021, the caps for the programs were met in less than an hour.

In Montana, it's a done deal, signed by Governor Greg Gianforte. In Idaho, it's almost there. The surging cost of property taxes throughout the Mountain States has been a hot topic in legislative sessions. Today, the Idaho House joined the debate by passing HB 292. The legislation is broken down into three years: 2023 - $205,000,000+ 2024 & 2025 - $150,000,000 Most of the relief in the first year comes from the state's general fund surplus. In the second year, 4.5% of what the state collects from sales taxes would be diverted to lower property taxes via a credit. Finally, the bill increases the number of people who would qualify for the state's property tax relief program (also known as the "circuit breaker.") Homeowners will know where the reductions come from. The legislation says property tax bills will indicate the savings with text that reads “tax relief appropriated by the Legislature.” The measure also removes the March date that school districts can use for elections, meaning that elections can only be held in May, August and November. Part of the legislation also distributes money from the state to school districts for the purposes of lowering bond and levy burdens. Property tax relief has been built into Idaho’s property tax system for decades. Beginning in 1980, homeowners received a property tax exemption up to 50% of the value of their home, originally capped at $10,000. This exemption was deducted from the assessed value of the home, while the remainder was then the taxable value of the property. In 2006, Idaho began to rely upon the Federal Housing Price Index to set the exemption amount for property taxes and this number fluctuated with the housing market. In 2016, the Idaho legislature voted to cap the property tax exemption at $100,000 (which later increased to $125,000). Because Montana does not rely on sales taxes, more of the burden is placed on property and income taxes. Numerous proposals have been put forward to address the issue of rising property taxes in both states. These changes may help reduce the cost for property owners in the short term, but will they stop overspending at the local level in the long run? It remains to be seen, but some state officials have laid some of the blame of higher property taxes on local governments that continue to spend, and the taxpayers who keep approving new local tax measures.

Some progress is being made to expand education choice options in Idaho. The Idaho Senate Education committee today passed SB 1161, an expansion of the state’s Empowering Parents program. Here’s what SB 1161 includes: Expansion of the Empowering Parents to include “micro grants” of $1,000 per student to be used for “eligible education expenses” Addition of transportation to and from a facility where education program is offered as an “eligible” expense Addition of “tuition grant” of $6,000 that can be used for academic instruction, both traditional tuition and/or for the hiring of a certified teacher for a micro-school There are some limitations. First, the bill makes it clear the money is subject to appropriation by the legislature, meaning it’s not open-ended. Second, priority is given to students who belong to a family with a gross income under $60,000. If funds are still available, priority is given to students belonging to families with less than $75,000. And if funds are still available after that, money is distributed on a first-come, first-serve basis. Funds would have to be spent within two years after they are awarded. Micro grants per family are capped at $3,000. And the tuition grants can be given to no more than 2,000 students. The cost of the bill is $30 million for the ongoing micro grants, as well as $12 million for the tuition grants for five years. Because the program is labeled a “pilot,” the bill requires the legislature to review the tuition grant process again before the 2028 legislative session. The bill introduced and passed today follows many of the recommendations made in our study Education Choice Improves Outcomes. MSPC was asked to testify before lawmakers during the hearing. Here’s what we said:

The Idaho House Education Committee is considering a proposal to place an advisory question before voters next fall (2024) regarding education choice. There is widespread support for education choice, but policymakers need to exercise extreme caution with this idea. The proposal introduced Tuesday by Representative Lori McCann would simply ask voters if they wanted to “divert public tax dollars to private K-12 schools, including religious schools and for-profit schools.” Unfortunately, the question misses the mark and represents – again – the confusion that currently exists among lawmakers regarding education choice. Some lawmakers believe they are voting on a “voucher” bill. Even the sponsor of the advisory question referred to “ESA/voucher bills.” But most of the Idaho legislative session has featured debates about Education Savings Accounts – not vouchers. And they are very different. An ESA allows parents to use a portion of state funding on a variety of education services. Yes, it can include private school tuition, but it can also include tutoring, special needs services, curriculum, mental health treatment and much more - so long as it is for an educational purpose. Furthermore, using the word “divert” suggests the money is being taken from someplace else – such as public schools. In fact, most of the proposals actually suggest creating a separate budget item. And the per-student funding in public schools would likely increase, as proposals have included 20% of funds being put into K-12. Instead of placing a simplistic question on the ballot this fall, legislators should opt for an interim legislative study on existing ESA programs across the country. This could be done by an unbiased source – perhaps the state Controller or Legislative Audit Division – and could be available by the time the next session begins. Lawmakers could make their request specific – getting much-needed answers to questions that could determine a way forward for education choice in Idaho.

When it comes to having a competitive tax environment, Montana is stepping-up its game. Governor Greg Gianforte has signed a flurry of bills that bring about the largest tax cut in state history, reducing income, property, capital gains and even business equipment taxes in the state. On the income tax side, Montana's top rate falls from 6.75% to 5.9%. The bill also triples the earned income tax credit. Another bill - HB 221 - simplifies Montana's capital gains income tax and lowers the cap gains rates to the fourth lowest in the country. HB 222 provides $500 million in property tax relief for homeowners for the primary residence. The governor also signed into law HB 192, which provides Montana income taxpayers with rebates of up to $1,250. While the rebates will be welcome news for many families, a preferred policy should seek ways to lower long-term burdens rather than issue one-time checks. HB 212 - also signed by the governor, increases the business equipment tax exemption to $1 million. You can watch Governor Gianforte's remarks and the signing ceremony here.

This column has appeared in the Idaho Statesman and the Twin Falls Times-News. "Reclaim Idaho" - the activist group that successfully pushed expansion of Medicaid in Idaho, as well as a ballot measure that would have raised income taxes for education funding - has a new proposal based on a bad idea. The group's new initiative would do several things: (1) change Idaho's primary elections from closed to open - meaning any person could participate, regardless of whether they are Republican, Democrat or neither and (2) adopt ranked choice voting in the state. Open primaries are not entirely unusual. More than a dozen states have an open primary system. While advantageous for independents who may not want to join one party or another, open primaries can have the effect of allowing members of one political party influence over the candidates of the other. Ranked choice voting (RCV) may be the bigger issue here. Idaho legislators passed a bill this session that outlaws ranked choice voting. RCV allows voters to rank their choices based on preference. For example, a Republican voter may choose the Republican candidate as their first choice, an Independent candidate as their second choice and a Democrat as their third choice. If no person receives 50% of the votes, the counting process starts over, eliminating the candidate who did the worst and re-distributing their votes based on their second choice. Alaska and Maine are the only two states that have adopted RCV for congressional and state elections. Ranked choice voting has numerous problems, including: The votes that count more If you chose the winning candidate in an RCV system - congratulations. If you didn't, don't worry - your new votes in round two, three or four may help push a candidate across the finish line. Because RCV retabulates votes each round, your support can shift, giving some voters multiple opportunities to pick a winner. This is in direct conflict with the principle of "one person, one vote." "Exhausted" votes Some votes simply won't count. Why? They may become "exhausted." This means that the voter either over-voted, under-voted or chose only candidates that haven't advanced to further rounds of counting. These "exhausted" votes are then thrown out. It is estimated that some 10% of votes are discarded or "exhausted" in any RCV election. This San Francisco RCV election was a confusing mess, going 20 rounds and "exhausting" nearly 10,000 votes. Voter confusion and low turnout Numerous studies have shown RCV leads to major confusion and lower voter turnout. One analysis of San Francisco's RCV found a "significant" correlation between a drop in voter turnout and the adoption of ranked choice voting. The results appear even worse in off-year elections. Too many candidates? RCV is one thing with a limited number of candidates - it is quite another if there are many candidates. Because voters would be required to rank every race, they would want to know and study the positions of every candidate. Imagine a race of 12-15 candidates. Could voters adequately determine the policy positions of all of them to properly rank their choice? Process delays Because of the tabulation process, many RCV election results are not available on Election Day. Depending on the number of candidates, they may not even be available Election week. Pierce County, in Washington State, experimented with ranked choice voting in in 2006. By 2008, it returned to the former system. Former California Governor Jerry Brown may have said it best: "In a time when we want to encourage voter participation, we need to keep voting simple. Ranked choice voting is overly complicated and confusing. I believe it deprives voters of genuinely informed choice.”

Longer days and increasing temperatures are enjoyable, but for farmers and farmworkers they mean longer work weeks. The onset of the growing season, the last efforts of planting, and the accompanying irrigation schedules are expanding the farm workweek. Unfortunately, for many farm workers they are unable to take advantage of the increase in hours. The recent passage of agricultural overtime laws in California, Washington, and Oregon has limited the hours of farm workers. Historically, farmworkers have been able to work many hours during the growing season, to compensate for the low/non-existent hours during the winter. Now on the West Coast (and a few other states) phased-in overtime mandates exist but farmworkers are not better off. Washington requires overtime payments when hours reach above 55 hours per week in 2022, 48 hours per week in 2023, and 40 hours per week in 2024 and beyond. Oregon is following a similar, but slower schedule but is a year behind with the 55 hours per week cap in 2023, with full implementation by 2027. California has already fully implemented an overtime requirement above 40 hours per week. The intent of removing the agricultural overtime exemption, was to improve the economic situation of farmworkers. “Parents don’t have to work as much to make money so they could cover all the expenses and spend some time with their kids,” said Juarez, who is a member of Familias Unidas por la Justicia. However, economics came into play. Farmers are working to minimize hours and employ more workers or use more machinery if possible, limiting the earning potential of farm employees. Many farm employees are no longer working as much at one farming operation. Instead, they are going without hours or are bouncing between operations to make up the difference. Though the second option is difficult to attain as schedules often conflict between businesses. Small family farmers are not excluded (with only small delays to the rule) and can no longer work with farmworkers to find solutions that meet both their needs. Farmers are forced to hire more workers to keep costs lower and/or work even longer hours themselves. Farmworkers end the growing season far below their earning potential of previous years. A 55-hour work week amounts to five 11-hour shifts, with a two-day weekend. During planting, growing, and harvesting, farms run 6 to 7 days per week, preferably during most of the daylight hours. In the Treasure Valley of Idaho and Oregon, there are 12 hours of daylight in mid-March. If 12 hour days are postponed to April, 55 hours per week is reached quickly. Farmworkers have to leave a lot of money on the table because of the state legislatures. Mountain States Policy Center roughly estimates that a farm worker would have $10,000 less in income with the 55-hour cap and $20,000 less in income with the 40-hour cap. The model assumes that farm worker hours from March to October would range between 9.5 to 12 hours per day. Oregon and Washington workers are capped at 55 hours, but farm workers in other states would be able to work up to 6 days per week at 12 hours a day (72 hours per week) (This is a conservative estimate). The model also assumes that farming operations would minimize overtime hours for the majority of employees. The average wage was $16.36, using U.S. Bureau of Labor’s average farmworker wage. Is it fair for legislators to force farmworkers into higher levels of poverty? Absolutely not. Earlier this year in the Washington legislature, a legislator stated that farmworkers don’t understand this issue of agricultural overtime, but they absolutely do. Farmworkers are living the reality of $10,000 less a year and will soon experience further losses in income. It is some legislators who don’t understand that removing the overtime exemption doesn’t mean farmworkers will see an automatic increase in income. Farms work on a tight margin and will do all they can to minimize labor costs. Overtime is not an automatic conclusion. For workers hoping to earn a year’s worth of income in 6- 8 months, this income path is no longer possible. Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash

Higher education is getting more expensive, and both taxpayers and students are being saddled with the cost. The Idaho State Board of Education Monday approved a 5% increase in state tuition costs. Tuition at Lewis-Clark State College will increase 5.6%. Idaho News 6 detailed the dollar amount of the increases, as well as the other state action on Monday which increases the salaries of the college presidents. Before it adjourned, the Idaho legislature approved a $353,942,200 higher ed general fund budget. That is the largest amount in state history and represents an increase of roughly 5% from the previous year - certainly understandable in a time of high inflation. Since 2006, the state's higher education budget has increased 40%, according to numbers we obtained from the state's JFAC. What is remarkable is the fact that, while Idaho continues to be one of the fastest growing states in the country, the size of its college population has remained stagnant. In fact, it is nearly the same as it was 2006, and actually lower than it was in both 2004 and 2005. Idaho's college population reached its peak in 2012 at 38,509. "Student support"- which is defined as tuition and fees - "has grown four times the rate of inflation from 1992 through 2021" according to the state JFAC. In the last Idaho legislative session, proposals were floated to freeze tuition and create a working group to consider a new funding formula. Given the growing, heavy burden on taxpayers and students, it may be time to bring back that conversation.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and, in the process, protected free speech online. The court today ruled on two cases - Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter, Inc., v. Taamneh. The question presented in Gonzalez was whether online services like Google may be held liable under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 for recommending relevant third-party content to their users. The court ruled they should not. The case dates back to the ISIS killing of Nohemi Gonzalez in the November 2015 Paris attacks. There is no direct link between YouTube and Gonzalez’s death, no evidence that YouTube was used to plan the attacks or recruit the attackers. Nonetheless, Gonzalez’s family sued YouTube’s owner, Google, claiming that YouTube had hosted ISIS recruitment videos around the time of the attacks. The trial court applied Section 230 and dismissed the suit. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision. Now the case is headed to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs contend that their lawsuit is not about the terrorist videos themselves, but about YouTube recommending those videos to users. Mountain States Policy Center and eleven other free market organizations filed an amicus brief in support of Google in this case in February, explaining that Section 230's liability shield is critical to protect the free marketplace of ideas on the internet. If the Court had limited Section 230’s liability shield for recommending third-party content, online services would have faced severe financial penalties for hosting speech which challenges mainstream political ideas. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES: Mountain States Policy Center: Why we're joining arguments on a case before the U.S. Supreme Court Mountain States Policy Center Amicus Brief in Gonzalez v. Google

Governor Greg Gianforte has signed a bill that creates Education Savings Accounts for special needs children in Montana. The breakthrough - HB 393 - passed overwhelmingly in both the Montana House and Montana Senate. HB 393 allows parents who choose to sign up funds (roughly $6,800) for their child that can be used on private school tuition and fees, textbooks, curriculum, tutoring, education therapies, transportation and other education related expenses. It can be a tremendously helpful tool for parents who might not have the resources they need to get their child the extra help he or she requires. Most credible, major studies have concluded that educational outcomes improve when education choice is permitted - not only for students taking advantage of education choice, but also with those who did not. "A review of the empirical research on private school choice finds evidence that private school choice delivers some benefits to participating students—particularly in the area of educational attainment—and tends to help, albeit to a limited degree, the achievement of students who remain in public schools."​ -Peabody Journal of Education, Volume 91, Issue 4 Education Savings Accounts for special needs children was one of the recommendations MSPC made in our Education Choice Improves Outcomes report in January. Unfortunately, Idaho, Wyoming and Washington could not advance education choice bills in their latest legislative sessions.

It's no secret that Idaho and Montana are two of the fastest growing states in the country. In fact, almost every county in Idaho and a majority in Montana are seeing population growth. Many of the new residents of Idaho and Montana have come by way of California, Oregon and Washington where high taxes, increasing crime, rampant homelessness and strangling regulations are making it difficult for many working families to survive. The population data tells a story, but the market data is just as stark. Consider the price of renting a U-Haul truck. It is consistently less expensive to rent a truck from Idaho and drive it to a destination on the west coast, than the other way around. Why? The demand is so high, U-Haul charges more. Likewise, the demand to return is so low, U-Haul is trying to make it in your financial interests to get the trucks back to locations such as Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. Today, we checked on the price of renting the most inexpensive U-Haul truck on a Wednesday, and driving it to and from various locations. The cost tells a story: (Prices from rental inquiry for June 28th) Los Angeles to Boise - $2,665 Boise to Los Angeles - $693 San Francisco to Boise - $1,069 Boise to San Francisco - $555 Portland to Boise - $590 Boise to Portland - $344 Seattle to Boise - $584 Boise to Seattle - $383 The Los Angeles to Boise prices, in particular, are astonishing. It costs nearly 400% more to rent a U-Haul truck with the intent to leave LA and head to Boise. Idaho's quality of life, low tax burden and booming economy make it incredibly attractive. When it comes to public policy, citizens vote with their feet. And in this case, it's a stampede. As a result, Montana just gained an extra seat in Congress, and Idaho is poised to gain another in the 2030 census.

Thanks to the perseverance of a Northern Idaho couple, the Clean Water Act (CWA), is less polluted by bureaucratic expansion. Last week, the Supreme Court ruled (5-4) in favor of Michael and Chantell Sackett in their 15-year case versus the Environment Protection Agency (EPA). The Court’s decision brings clarity to the long-disputed definition of adjacent waters, determining that a continuous surface connection must exist for adjacent wetlands to be included within the authority of the Clean Water Act. This is not a win for property owners and a loss for environmental advocates. This is a win for all citizens who want to know if their actions are legal. Basic questions can now be answered, like “Can I move this pile of dirt from one side of my property to another?” or “Can I drain this puddle?” The CWA can still be ecologically beneficial and now, citizens know where they stand with the CWA. Since the adoption of the Clean Water Act in 1972, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers have leveraged the ambiguous wording within the act to expand bureaucratic authority. Phrases and words like ‘Waters of the United States (WOTUS)’, ‘navigable’, ‘waters’, ‘significant nexus’, and ‘adjacent’ are all used to describe the scope of the legislation. Citizens are left wondering if the water on or near their property is subject to the CWA and according to the EPA it probably is. Decades of legal disputes reflect the confusing nature of the act. Since the passing of the CWA over fifty years ago, the environmental bureaucracy has expanded immensely. The EPA’s interpretation of navigable waters has grown to include any tributary that contributes to a navigable waterway and adjacent could be anything touching or in near proximity, with no specific distance used to describe proximity. With these continually expanding definitions millions of acres of private property have been and could be commandeered into the EPA’s jurisdictions, crippling the importance of property rights and the authority of the individual States to regulate. The Sacketts, stood up to the EPA’s expanding and illegal application of the CWA. The couple argued that their home site, separated from Priest Lake by a row of homes and a dirt road, was not adjacent to a navigable water. Three justices agreed with this conclusion, determining that to be adjacent a continuous surface connection must be present. Two more justices also argued that Priest Lake itself wouldn’t even fall into the category of navigable by the historical definition, and so the EPA should not even apply CWA to the lake, let alone argue for an adjacent wetland. These five justices in the majority opinion oppose the EPA’s broad interpretation of the CWA. For decades, citizens have been left in precarious positions, grappling with the ambiguous definitions. If a person’s property is under the authority of the CWA, violations could cost in excess of $60,000 per violation per day and/or be accompanied with criminal penalties. To prevent these violations citizens could pay thousands of dollars in private consulting fees to determine if the CWA might apply, but these are not official rulings. Or citizens could approach the bureaucratic entities to ask if the CWA applies and request a permit. However, the answer is often yes under their broad interpretations, and the permits are slow from the Army Corps of Engineers. No doubt, the ecological benefits of the CWA are immense, but leaving citizens subject to these ambiguous definitions can be economically and mentally catastrophic, as they lose their property rights and even their livelihoods. It is time for the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers to have a stricter definition that fits within the legal limits of the CWA. Thanks to the patience of a Northern Idaho couple, the Supreme Court’s recent opinion tightens these definitions and removes some of the CWA’s bureaucratic pollution, providing much needed clarity to citizens throughout the country. Madi Clark on KTVB NewsChannel 7 in Boise: