This November, Wyoming voters will decide whether to amend the state constitution and change how property tax is applied for owner occupied residences. SJR 3 was adopted by a vote of 53-9 in the House and 22-8 in the Senate and placed on the ballot for approval by state voters. Adoption of SJR 3 by voters would create a fourth class of property under the state constitution, separating owner occupied residences from the tax treatment of all other real and personal property. The other classes of property currently in the state constitution are for mines/minerals products and industrial properties. Here is the official ballot summary for SJR 3 : “The adoption of this amendment would separate residential real property into its own class of property for purposes of property tax assessments. The amendment would authorize the legislature to create a subclass of owner occupied primary residences.” Here are the arguments of SJR 3 supporters : "Currently there are only three classes of property for taxation: minerals, industrial and all other. Residential property is lumped under the latter class. As retooled, SJ3 would modify the Wyoming Constitution to create a fourth class of property tax – residential property. Our constitution also prohibits ‘sub-classes’ of property. The changes to SJ3 allowed a subclass of residential property - owner occupied primary residences. Once approved by the voters the legislature could then tax owner occupied homes at more favorable rates than is currently possible." There is currently no official opposition campaign against SJR 3. Here is how government officials describe Wyoming’s current property tax base : “Wyoming Statutes require all property to be valued at fair market value except for agricultural land which is valued by its productive capability. The fair market or productive value is given on the Assessment Schedule, also called a Notice of Assessment. To determine the final tax amount, there are a few terms which must be understood: o   Market Value: The fair market value (what the property could reasonably be expected to sell for) of the property. o   Assessment Rate: The percentage of appraised value which determines the Assessed Value. The Assessment Rate is 9.5% for agricultural, commercial, and residential property, 11.5% for industrial, and 100% for minerals. o   Assessed Value:  The market value multiplied by the assessment rate.” Having different tax rates for property types creates what is called a “split roll,” meaning all property isn’t taxed equally. If SJR 3 is adopted, this split roll will further increase by allowing owner occupied residences to be taxed at a different rate than other residential and commercial property. As explained by the Tax Foundation, a property tax split roll can cause several problems : “Through a split roll regime, distinct classes of property are taxed at different rates or face separate assessment ratios. This introduces non-neutrality to the tax code by changing the incentives to own or invest in certain types of property over others. Moreover, a differentiated tax system can encourage lawmakers to increase the property tax burden on some classes of property, often to the detriment of businesses, to generate additional revenue without being seen as raising taxes on homeowners.” With record property tax assessment increases occurring, homeowners are understandably concerned about the potential impact on their property tax bills. It is important to remember, however, that assessments are just a part of the calculation. The main driver of property taxes is spending increases approved by policymakers and voters themselves through levies. A better way to control property tax increases is on the spending side and/or with levy restrictions. One way to help bring greater transparency to the fact spending is the main cause of property tax increases is with a reform called Truth in Taxation. Truth in Taxation currently exists in Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Utah. To bring more transparency to property tax increases, Utah was the first to adopt Truth in Taxation in 1985. Here is how the Utah Legislature describes this property tax transparency process : “The basic concept of the system is that taxing entities may only budget the same amount of property tax each year, unless they have ‘new growth’ (not just change in value on existing properties) or go through a very public process of notifying the public and holding a public hearing on the proposed revenue increase. To achieve this, as taxable values change, the tax rate automatically adjusts to provide a constant amount of revenue. When values increase, the tax rate adjusts down to provide the taxing entity the same amount of revenue as it received in the prior year. When values decrease, the tax rate adjusts up to provide the same amount of revenue.” By adopting Truth in Taxation, taxpayers are in a better position to engage with government officials and understand their property tax burden and the connection to spending. Property taxes are an important part of the tax base for school districts, local governments, and the state. Though based on a relatively straightforward calculation, they are among the least understood taxes by taxpayers. By introducing even more split rolls to Wyoming’s property tax base with the enactment of SJR 3, it will be easier for government officials to increase spending by passing the cost to select taxpayers instead of all property owners as a whole. A better option to provide property tax relief without this type of economic distortion would be to adopt a reform similar to Truth in Taxation or enacting levy limits.

Like many cities across Washington state, the city of Spokane is facing a public safety crisis. Graffiti and garbage line many downtown streets, crime and homelessness have forced the closure of many city businesses, and citizens have complained of a lack of planning and enforcement by city officials. To make matters worse, lax state policies have hampered any efforts to enforce the law.   In 2023, a homeless camp was erected inside the city, on state property, and month by month grew larger than many small towns . While the city tried to remove the site , the state of Washington drug its feet. In the end, the camp cost taxpayers more than $20 million.   Homelessness and crime in the city have only worsened. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program , Spokane has one of the highest total crime rates in the United States. Washington state, too, faces a serious crime problem.   Last fall, Spokane County voters rejected a regional sales tax hike that would have been dedicated to an array of public safety priorities, including a new jail. This year, Spokane city voters are being asked to approve their own sales tax hike , aimed at funneling more dollars to police, fire and what the city calls “community resilience.”   The city of Spokane’s Proposition 1 reads :   “The Spokane City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-0067 concerning a proposition for funding enhanced community safety and other public safety operations such as the Spokane Fire Department, Spokane Police Department, Municipal Court, and Office of the Police Ombudsman. If approved, this proposition would increase the sales and use tax rate by one-tenth of one percent (0.1 %) to provide ongoing funding for community safety, criminal justice and law enforcement purposes permitted under RCW 82.14.450.”   If approved, the measure would generate nearly $8 million per year, with 15% going to Spokane County and the remaining staying in the city of Spokane. When initially placed on the ballot, the measure did not contain an expiration date, also known as a “sunset provision.” But city leaders in September said they intended to adopt a 10-year expiration date , meaning the measure would need to be renewed by voters in 2034 if it is to continue after a decade.   How the funds will be used is a subject of dispute. While city leaders contend the money will be spent on fire and policing equipment, they also say priorities under the umbrella of “community resilience” could receive revenue. That could include climate change priorities , according to some city council members.   The language of the measure gives the city broad authority on how the cash is spent :   “If revenues are sufficient, the Council reserves the right to use such additional funds to contract for, or pay personnel and related cost for recruiting, hiring, training, equipping and employing additional personnel in other capacities…”   Crime is typically divided into two categories – violent crime, which includes offenses such as murder, rape, robbery and assault, and property crime, which most often includes burglary and theft. In both categories, Washington state has experienced a surge, and policymakers have passed legislation that only makes it more severe.   In Spokane, the situation is even worse. In the most recent FBI statistics from 2022 , there were 1,541 violent offenses in the city, which is the equivalent of 672 per 100,000 residents. The daily average of both violent and property crimes surpasses 40. In many ways, Washington state leadership has only itself to blame for the state’s surging crime problem, as state policymakers have handcuffed efforts to enforce the law at the local level.   In 2021, legislators passed House Bill 1054 which made it more difficult for police to pursue criminal suspects unless police had probable cause. Law enforcement around the state complained citizens were no longer stopping for police, and as a result, public safety was at risk . Voters had to step in via an initiative in 2024 to change the law. The sales tax in the city of Spokane currently sits at 9.0%. This includes a 6.5% state base and a 2.5% allocated to local government. Roughly one-third of the city of Spokane’s tax revenue comes from the sales tax.   The city certainly does not have a tax collection problem. General fund tax revenues have increased nearly $20 million over the past four years – a nearly 10 percent hike. Spokane’s Proposition 1   would increase the city’s already-high sales tax by more than seven million dollars per year, placing extra strain on working families still struggling with high inflation. The city has already increased its public safety spending, particularly on its police department, without much improvement in the city’s startling crime rate.   It appears, then, that the real issue is not a lack of resources for public safety, but rather state and local policies that continually make crime more convenient. Before taxpayers agree to increase public safety spending, they should demand city and state leaders change course and allow public safety professionals the ability to do their job.   At the very least, any increase in funding should come with oversight strings attached and sunset provisions to require review, ideally within the first five years.

Montana and Idaho continue to demonstrate their leadership in the Mountain States with the recent approvals of their Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program proposals. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has officially approved Montana’s plan to access over $628 million, followed by Idaho’s approval for over $583 million in federal funding. These funds will help bring high-speed internet to underserved communities and remote areas of each state, cementing both states' positions at the forefront of broadband expansion in the region. This approval is a monumental step in ensuring that Montana and Idaho remain leaders in the race for digital connectivity, driving progress for their states and leading by example for the entire region. With BEAD funding, both states are on track to meet the needs of their residents by deploying reliable, affordable, and high-speed internet access across every last mile. U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo stated “In the 21st century, a reliable Internet connection is a necessity that enables access to jobs, health care, and education." The federal dollars will go toward deploying critical infrastructure and upgrading existing networks , enabling faster, more reliable connections in every corner of Montana and Idaho. From rural communities to urban hubs, these investments will strengthen the local economies by expanding access to telehealth, online education, and small business opportunities. Considering what other states should be doing in their application and implementation process, Idaho and Montana's proposals have helped pave the way for best practices. Idaho's proposal states : "In April 2023, Idaho launched the Statewide Stakeholder Asset Inventory Survey to identify ongoing broadband improvement programs and pinpoint areas with the greatest needs. The insights gained led to the discovery of broadband pilot programs. After the survey, ISP Roundtables brought together industry professionals to discuss crucial elements such as permitting, Right-of-Way access, affordability, and workforce availability, which are pivotal in shaping the State's broadband deployment strategy." Key engagement initiatives include: • Statewide Stakeholder Asset Inventory Survey • ISP Roundtables • Broadband 101 Community Listening Sessions • Public Survey • Tribal Engagement • Workforce and Economic Development Focus Group • Listening Sessions" Montana's proposal states : "To direct stakeholder engagement, the MBO developed a list of more than 2,800 stakeholders who represented populations highlighted in the NTIA requirements, including unserved/underserved and covered populations, to understand their needs related to the access, availability, and use of broadband. To reach covered populations, the State also held targeted interviews with stakeholders, including Tribal leaders, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Montana School for the Deaf and Blind, the Department of Corrections, the Department of Public Health, and Human Services: State Unit of Aging, and the Montana Rural Development State Office." Timely and efficient implementation is key to the success of these projects. While some states may encounter delays due to bureaucratic permitting processes , we encourage Montana and Idaho to stay focused on shovel-ready projects that can hit the ground running. By maintaining this clear strategy, both states will ensure that federal funds are utilized swiftly and effectively to deliver results without unnecessary delays, keeping them on the leading edge of broadband expansion in not only the Northwest Region but the country as a whole.

Across political, ethnic and racial divides, overwhelming majorities of Americans support education choice. Recent polling shows more than 70% support.   The results, too, show overwhelming success. More than 180 empirical studies indicate positive effects on everything from fiscal impact to parental satisfaction, test scores, civic values and more.   Roughly 60% of states now offer some form of an Education Savings Account (ESA), an education choice tax credit, or a tax credit scholarship. Each year, the list of participating states gets longer.   Unfortunately for students in the Mountain States, lawmakers have been more reluctant to add options. The arguments against choice here vary, but opponents – most often state teacher unions – launch legal roadblocks in every state. In Montana, for example, the teacher’s union has sued to block implementation of an ESA for special needs children. It has also attempted to block the creation of charter schools in the Treasure State.   Fearing expensive legal battles, policymakers who may be on the fence often err on the side of caution and vote against measures to expand choice, even though fewer and fewer legal battles are proving successful. Lawmakers must understand and expect any new program to face legal questions, especially when it is perceived to threaten special interest groups including unions. After all, the leaders of those groups are paid to protect their member interests.   The overarching question, however, is whether education choice is constitutional? In most states, the answer is yes, as we highlight in a new study released today. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated the federal Establishment Clause as a barrier to education choice. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris allows the government to fund any school on a neutral basis, so long as the choice of a religious school is left voluntary. This has left opponents at the state level with just two potential courses to pursue roadblocks: the religious and education provisions recorded in state constitutions.   A “compelled support” clause exists in 29 state constitutions. It was originally intended to prevent an official state religion. Anti-Catholic Blaine Amendments can also be found in dozens of state constitutions – provisions the U.S. Supreme Court has labeled “shameful” and a “clear manifestation of religious bigotry.”   Every state constitution also has an education provision, with some containing language that calls for a “uniform system of free public education,” or something similar. Education choice opponents have argued that such language not only requires the government to establish traditional public schools, but also prevents the government from doing anything else. Uniformity Clauses, however, were never intended to be a ceiling or limitation on creativity. Instead, they were simply meant to ensure there was a floor.   The United States Supreme Court has issued several recent rulings that are instructive here. In Carson v. Makin, the court ruled on the constitutionality of the oldest school choice program in the United States. Town tuition programs in Maine and Vermont allowed towns that don’t have public schools to pay for a student’s tuition at an approved public or private school – including religious schools. When Maine moved to ban religious schools from participating, the case went to the Supreme Court and was overturned, with justices concluding it violated a parent’s First Amendment religious rights.   Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue from 2022 dealt with restrictions to Montana’s tax credit scholarship program. The Montana Department of Revenue prohibited recipients from using their scholarships at religious schools. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “a state need not subsidize private education. But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”   In 2011, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn . That case involving Arizona’s scholarship tax credit. The court ruled the plaintiffs had no standing to sue because tax credits involve personal income, not government money – a critical distinction that serves as an example for other states.   There are also dozens of state cases that provide a roadmap.   The West Virginia Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of the ESA’s and said: “We find that the West Virginia Constitution does not prohibit the Legislature from enacting the Hope Scholarship Act in addition to providing for a thorough and efficient system of free schools. The Constitution allows the Legislature to do both of these things.”   In Puerto Rico, the Free School Selection Program provided needy families scholarships so they could send children to the school of their choice – whether private or public. It prioritized students who were low income, disabled, adopted or in foster care. Teachers’ unions sued to stop the scholarships, claiming they violated Puerto Rico’s prohibition against using public money for private schools. But the Puerto Rico Supreme Court ruled against the suit, upholding the scholarship as it went to families, and not directly schools.   In Georgia, activists took aim at a program that provided scholarships for children to attend private schools, funded by voluntary donations from individuals and corporations. The court ruled those who brought the case had no standing because neither they, nor the state, were hurt by the tax credit.   The Arizona Court of Appeals held that the Corporate Tax Credit Scholarships program did not violate the federal Establishment Clause because (1) the program had a valid, secular purpose and maintained neutrality toward religion, (2) it allowed parents and students to freely choose from a range of secular and religious educational options and (3) the program did not result in excessive government entanglement with religion.   Arizona’s Supreme Court also held that the education article in the state’s constitution for a “general and uniform” public school system applies only to the obligation to fund a public school system that is adequate and defining adequacy is a legislative task.   A trial court ruled that Florida’s Corporate Tax Credit program did not negatively hurt public schools or state funding of K-12. Instead, the court credited the program as likely to improve the public school system as a whole.   Judges on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Louisiana’s special education program did not violate the Establishment Clause because the opportunity was secular and provided no incentive for parents to pick a specific religious institution.   The North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the state’s Opportunity Scholarships programs, ruling that public funds may be spent on all types of education, and the program did not create an alternate system of publicly funded private schools.   The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships program did not violate the Blaine Amendment of the Oklahoma Constitution because the program is neutral with respect to religion and the parent—not the government—decides where the child goes to school and the aid is for the student, not for the sectarian school.   The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program did not violate the state’s Compelled Support Clause or its Blaine Amendment, because students were not required to attend religious schools and any benefits to those schools are incidental.   The overwhelming consensus of cases at the federal and state level shows education choice programs are constitutional. The key is for policymakers to put the decisions in the hands of parents. Any benefits to religious institutions, then, would be the result of individual choices – not government action or taxpayer money. Parents may choose to use the assistance to fund a child’s schooling at a religious institution, but they are just as likely to choose a program that is secular.   Perhaps the simplest education choice solution is a refundable tax credit. Cases brought against tax credits have rarely had success because plaintiffs cannot show any personal injury, and they involve personal income – not government funds. Article 9, §1 of the Idaho Constitution creates a duty to “establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.” But nothing in the state constitution prevents the legislature from supplementing that duty or requires parents to send their child to a government school. The constitution simply creates a baseline. As the West Virginia Supreme Court recently ruled, the legislature can do “both of these things.”

This November, voters in the city of Bozeman will decide whether to adopt a ban on plastic bags and straws, as well as foam containers.  Supporters of the “Bozeman Plastics Initiative” collected 6,739 signatures this year to place the measure on the ballot . The measure specifically targets five items: food containers made of polystyrene foam, packing materials made of polystyrene foam, plastic bags, plastic straws and plastic stirrers. Straws and stirrers would only be allowed at businesses in Bozeman by customer request. If voters approve the ban, it will take effect in May of 2025, with stiff penalties of $1,000 for a first violation, and $2,000 for a second. Just a few months ago, it wasn’t clear whether the Bozeman Plastics Initiative would even appear on the ballot. Gallatin County Elections officials and the Bozeman city attorney contended organizers did not meet the 25% signature threshold to place a measure on the ballot in a non-general election year.  A lawsuit was filed leading to a settlement in August that allowed the initiative to proceed. During the 2021 legislative session, Montana state lawmakers passed House Bill 407 , commonly called the “ban on bans” bill. This legislation established uniformity for the state and prohibited local regulations, fees or bans on containers, plastics and more. In March, however, a Helena judge ruled the legislation unconstitutional , giving initiative supporters the green light to collect signatures. Cities, towns and some states across the country have adopted various plastic bag or container bans. California became the first state, in August of 2014, to ban plastic bags and require a charge for paper bags. Cities including Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco and Boulder, Colorado, have followed suit . Nearly 20 other states have preemptions that block local plastic bag bans. The question is whether banning plastic bags and similar items is an effective way to help the environment? The University of Georgia’s school of Forestry and Natural Resources completed a comprehensive review of California’s plastics policy, looking at plastic trash bag sales in counties with bans or fees in place, versus those without. Researchers found that small trash bag sales simply increased dramatically – by as much as 25% - in communities with a ban, indicating that consumers were not reducing their use, just getting them someplace else. “After the regulations came into effect, consumers’ plastic bag demand switched from regulated plastic bags to unregulated bags,” researcher Yu-Kai Huang wrote. Alternatives to plastic bags or other banned items may be even more harmful. The United Kingdom’s Environment Agency released a report in 2011 that highlighted the carbon impact of paper, reusable plastic, and cotton bags is higher  than single-use plastic bags. In fact, scientists said you’d need to reuse a cotton bag more than 130 times to have an impact on the environment. Similarly, researchers in Demark in 2018 concluded cotton bags are far more environmentally harmful than plastic bags. Banning plastic bags also raise sanitation concerns. Most people who carry around reusable, cloth bags do not necessarily take care to make sure the bag is clean. Some may keep the bag in their backseat or the trunk of their vehicle. Others might only wash the bag once a month. The concern about sanitation was especially high during the COVID-19 pandemic, when a number of states that had adopted plastic bag bans suspended implementation due to hygiene concerns . Americans use plastic bags for a variety of reasons, and few use them only once, often using a grocery store bag to reline a house trash can, carry lunch to work, or pick up after a favorite pet. Bringing down plastic consumption in the United States may be a noble goal, but government bans on plastic bags and other items are simply an ineffective fad that can actually do more harm than good.

This November, Washington voters will decide if consumer energy choices deserve protection. Over the course of the last year, Washington state bureaucrats and elected officials have followed the climate posturing of high-cost energy states, by banning natural gas in future builds and pushing for grid electrification for existing natural gas users. Washington Initiative 2066 is the response to this government-created restriction on consumer energy choices, reversing the natural gas bans and prohibiting any and all future energy restrictions.   There are currently only seven states plus Washington D.C. with jurisdictions restricting natural gas use in new construction. Washington state is one of these regions with restrictions on natural gas. On the other hand, over half of the states in the country have placed preemptive measures in place prohibiting any natural gas bans by local or state jurisdictions . Regional neighbors of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have all voted to prohibit these local bans on natural gas. On September 15, 2023, Washington’s State Building Code Council (SBCC) adopted new natural gas restrictions which ignored federal law and restricted consumer energy choices. The code removed the mandate for heat pump adoption but created credit incentives that would be so cost-prohibitive to natural gas it would deter its usage in new homes. The SBCC voted to delay the code implementation until after the following session. Washington Policy Center (WPC) has actively participated in the critique of these codes and their failure to follow the regulatory codes, which call for economic impact reports to small businesses. WPC has petitioned both the SBCC council and the governor to ensure the economic impact of the new codes is addressed. The requests were denied.   The trouble continued during the latest 2024 session, when the Washington legislature passed House Bill 1589. Lieutenant Governor Denny Heck said of the draft form of the house bill submitted to the Senate, “There is no other way of saying this clearly, the president is troubled by this legislation. The drafting and construction of this bill is very simply a hot mess. ” The bill unconstitutionally avoided identifying what existing legislation would be affected if enacted, essentially a blank check of regulatory oversight and energy limitations on consumers.   The bill was partially revised but remained very ambiguous on many details.   The ballot summary for Initiative Measure No. 2066 says:   “This measure would require utilities and local governments to provide natural gas to eligible customers, prevent state approval of rate plans requiring or incentivizing gas service termination, restricting access to gas service, or making it cost-prohibitive; and prohibit the state energy code, localities, and air pollution control agencies from penalizing gas use. It would repeal sections of chapter 351, Laws of 2024, including planning requirements for cost-effective electrification and prohibitions on gas rebates and incentives.”   Even if Washington state moves forward on limiting natural gas bans on the consumers, the state's reliance on natural gas electricity is likely to remain the same for some time. Currently, Washington is one of the lowest consumers of natural gas-fired electricity, but banning natural gas use at the consumer level will not alter the state’s energy profile.   Washington has already diversified its electricity grid with one of the highest rates of renewable power in the country. The state is unlikely to fully wean off of natural gas-fired electricity nor should it from a diversification and reliability standpoint. However, the state’s recent rules and legislation limit consumer choices, while still permitting choice for electrical providers, based on cost, supply, and weather.   Natural gas bans argue electrification is justified because of efficiency gains. Anyone who has used a gas oven can attest through simple qualitative experience that the gas oven is more efficient. It is assumed in the restaurant business that there is a 40% loss in productivity if using an electric stove. Even the California Energy Commission argues that a gas stove will cost less to operate and take less energy to produce and deliver heat to your stove.   Ability to pay is always a better determinant of adoption over efficiency gains and environmental impact. Leaving consumers free to make their energy choices, allows them to judge what will be most affordable in the long run.   Consumers know the most about what they like, need, and can afford. Climate ideologies turned government regulations interfere with consumer preferences, causing economic and physical harm to consumers, while rarely meeting any climate-centered goal. Natural gas bans often disguised as ‘grid electrification’ are policy directives with imagined benefits and real-world harm.   Limiting energy options endangers the financial well-being of consumers and prioritizes government grandstanding over individual liberty. Natural gas bans are not good policy and should be prohibited because market drivers will encourage consumers to adopt greener and more economical energy choices while leaving them free to choose the energy that fits their needs, budgets, and priorities best.

This November, Montana voters will decide whether to adopt two separate constitutional amendments: CI-126 to require a non-partisan Top 4 multi-party primary system to determine which candidates advance to the general election; and CI-127 to require 50% support to win an election. Montana is currently an “open” primary state, meaning voters are able to choose either a Republican or Democrat ballot during a primary without needing to belong to one of these private political groups.   While there are many examples of states with open primaries across the country, currently only Alaska uses a Top 4 multi-party primary for statewide elections. This primary format has also been combined with Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in that state. Alaska voters narrowly adopted the Top 4/RCV policy in 2020 by 50.55% , but its use has been so controversial that Alaskans this November will have the opportunity to repeal it  with the certification of a new ballot measure. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures  (NCSL), “primaries can be categorized as closed, partially closed, partially open, open to unaffiliated voters, open or multi-party.” If CI-126 is enacted, Montana would be moving from an “open” primary that is currently used by 15 states, to a “multi-party primary” that is used by five states. Though Ranked Choice Voting is not explicitly required by CI-127, Montana's Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen has warned about the problems associated with RCV. Secretary Jacobsen said : “. . . following implementation of RCV in Alaska, my Alaskan election colleagues referred to it as ‘the biggest nightmare they've ever had to deal with’ – so much in fact, that Alaska is currently in the process of getting RCV repealed. Studies have shown that RCV can decrease voter turnout, create distrust in the process, and disenfranchise voters, specifically minorities. With RCV, you are essentially forced to vote for someone you would never vote for or endorse to begin with.” Also, though a strong advocate for the Evergreen State’s Top 2 Primary, Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs is adamantly opposed to Ranked Choice Voting. Concerned about RCV proposals, Secretary Hobbs recently penned an op-ed titled: “Ranked-choice voting sounds good. But here’s why it would disenfranchise voters.” Secretary Hobbs and Spokane County Auditor Vicky Dalton wrote : “Before signing onto ranked-choice voting, we ask that you listen to the experts who ensure every Washington voter counts. It is not simple to convert elections from checking one box to ranking several choices . . . Even advocates of changing voting methods have conceded that 29% of voters don’t rank multiple candidates in ranked-choice elections. This means nearly a third of ballots have reduced influence, an unacceptable deprivation. In findings released earlier this year, Princeton University professor Nolan McCarty examined ranked-choice elections in New York City and Alaska and found that minority voters are disproportionately shortchanged by this construct.” Taxpayer-funded elections don’t belong to private political groups. Although Montana already offers voters an open primary election system, moving to a multi-party primary (preferably Top 2) is a debate worth having. In general, there aren’t major policy concerns with a Top 2 primary like Washington and California have (also currently under consideration in South Dakota ). In 2008, Justice Thomas wrote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion  upholding that type of multi-party primary because they aren’t party nominating processes but instead structured to advance the two candidates with the most support to the general election. A Top 4 primary is more challenging as a policy, however, as it almost requires by design either a candidate winning without 50% or some type of runoff election. This is likely why supporters of CI-126 also advanced CI-127. Currently, only Alaska uses a Top 4 primary (combined with Ranked Choice Voting) but that system may be repealed by voters this year.

As billions of dollars in federal funding flows into states through the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, the success of expanding internet access hinges on the efficiency of local permitting processes. We believe that local and state broadband agencies must prioritize reforms that empower the market—not bureaucracy—to drive broadband expansion forward. The BEAD program's $42.45 billion investment is a historic opportunity to close the digital divide, but success will be based on whether or not local governments streamline their permitting processes. A recent op-ed from StateScoop  highlights that these permitting processes will play a crucial role in deploying broadband projects. Unfortunately, with the majority of permitting responsibilities resting on local governments, the risk of bureaucratic bottlenecks stalling broadband deployment is high. To avoid delays and maximize the impact of BEAD funding, local and state broadband agencies should focus on shovel-ready and last-mile projects that are already primed to receive these funds . These projects have already laid the groundwork, and likely already have received their permitting, from private sector providers and are primed to receive funding and begin construction immediately. They can bring high-speed internet to underserved communities far more quickly than new municipal ventures bogged down in bureaucratic delays. By reforming permitting processes to be more efficient and predictable, local governments can help keep satisfying market demands at the forefront, allowing private companies to leverage their expertise and resources to meet community broadband needs. This approach minimizes government interference, keeps costs in check, and ensures taxpayer dollars are used responsibly. Some may argue that creating municipal broadband utilities would help alleviate the permitting backlog  by having a dedicated department focused on broadband deployment. While this may sound appealing on the surface, it ignores the inefficiencies and risks associated with expanding government roles in broadband. Municipal broadband utilities often require significant taxpayer-funded investments to build and maintain infrastructure. This "investment" comes with high operational costs, the need for specialized staff, and the risk of duplicating services that private companies already provide more effectively. Expanding government control introduces more layers of bureaucracy, slows down decision-making, and diminishes accountability. Instead of expanding government, local governments should focus on streamlining permitting processes that speed up broadband deployment by the private sector. Reforms could include setting clear timelines, reducing redundant inspections, and implementing transparent, consistent guidelines that make it easier for private providers to navigate the permitting landscape. These are simple, but effective ways any municipality could ensure funds flow without bottlenecking. Private sector providers have a demonstrated track record of rapidly deploying broadband infrastructure and adapting to market demands. Unlike government-run utilities, private companies have the incentive to move quickly, innovate, and efficiently serve their customers. By reforming local permitting processes, municipalities can clear the path for these companies to deliver high-speed internet where it’s needed most. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are also valuable tools that local governments can use to combine public oversight with private sector efficiency. By fostering early communication between permit seekers and permitting authorities, and by providing clear, streamlined processes, local governments can avoid the pitfalls of government overreach while ensuring successful broadband expansion. Local governments should view themselves as partners in the broadband expansion process, not competitors. They should work collaboratively with private providers to identify barriers, streamline approvals, and support projects that can deliver immediate results. By focusing on permitting reform, municipalities can play a crucial role in making sure broadband expansion is market-driven, efficient, and effective.

Regionally based Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories (SEL) recently released its 2024 Index of Freedom report . The top five states in the rankings are Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, South Dakota, and Arizona (Montana ranked 9th and Washington ranked 35th). According to SEL : "This index evaluates the business climate across all 50 states, ranking each based on three critical variables: government efficiency, regulatory freedom and energy resiliency. This marks the third year that SEL, a manufacturer headquartered in Pullman, Washington, compiled its ranking . . . The SEL Index of Freedom highlights potential advantages or challenges that exist when doing business in each state. This report differs from similar rankings in that energy resiliency significantly influences the score of the state. Affordable and reliable electric power is crucial to business success. The company serves critical infrastructure across the country and around the world, and this unique vantage point consistently highlights the importance of safe, reliable and economical electric power." While ranking each state, the report focused more closely on the conditions in Idaho and Washington. "Idaho benefits from less complex state tax and regulatory regimes. The Idaho tax code features a flat 5.8 percent tax on individual and corporate income, and its average combined state and local tax rate is relatively low as well. A less cumbersome and restrictive state regulatory environment, coupled with access to affordable and reliable electric power, make Idaho an attractive place to do business." "Washington has a relatively complex and restrictive regulatory environment that complicates the ability to do business and grow. Though Washington does not have typical state personal or corporate income taxes, it does levy a 7 percent capital gains tax as well as a gross receipts tax, creating a mixed picture for its state tax structure. Washington is, however, buoyed by the abundance of affordable, clean, and reliable hydroelectric power, which helps keep the lights on for businesses across the state." SEL's 2024 Index of Freedom report highlights that tax and regulatory burdens matter a lot to employers. A talented and developed workforce, combined with a reasonable tax code is the key to prosperity for a state and business. If states want to attract new business, they need to reduce the burden of high tax rates and regulations, while providing reliable and affordable energy sources. There are several recommendations to help states improve their business climate in our new Policy Manual . Based on SEL's 2024 Index of Freedom rankings, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming appear on the right track. Washington, however, has more work to do to become a business-friendly state.

Ahead of the 2025 legislative session, lawmakers in Idaho are reportedly considering various plans to expand education choice options in the Gem State. Every state will design a plan that is different. In some states, Education Savings Accounts work well to help children get the best education possible. Other states may look toward tax credits or tax credit scholarships. The number of states providing parents and students with the option for Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), education choice tax credits, or an education tax scholarship has now grown to 29. Several states are also in the process of expanding their existing education choice programs to cover even more students. Here is the current map of the 29 states  with these education choice options: The experience of other states gives lawmakers a roadmap for what is possible in the education choice arena. Perhaps the simplest education choice solution is a refundable tax credit. Legal challenges brought against tax credits have rarely had success because plaintiffs cannot show any personal injury, and they involve personal income – not government money. Legislators can tailor programs to be as broad or restrictive as political expediency demands, but from a policy standpoint, programs that allow the greatest number of parents the greatest amount of educational choice will create the best outcomes. Ideally, Idaho legislators should be aiming for a plan that includes the following: Simplicity - A program that is easy to understand for parents, educators and lawmakers, and does not require a bureaucracy to administer. Parental control - Place as much of the decision-making power as possible with parents. Universal participation - No limitations on student participation based on income or zip code. Flexibility - Avoid imposing additional rules and regulations on private schools. Education choice levels the playing field between schools and allows parents to act as a check on a system that is otherwise disposed to monopolistic pitfalls. Article 9, §1 of the Idaho Constitution creates a duty to “establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.” But nothing in the state constitution prevents the legislature from supplementing that duty or requires parents to send their child to a government school. The constitution simply creates a baseline. As the West Virginia Supreme Court recently ruled, the legislature can do “both of these things.” Additional resources: Answering the legal questions on expanding education choice Idaho's 10 largest school districts - what the data shows Education choice can improve student outcomes

This November, Idaho voters will decide whether to enact Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) for statewide elections while using a non-partisan Top 4 primary system to determine which candidates advance to the general election. Idaho is currently one of nine states that are referred to as a “partially closed” primary state, meaning the private political parties are allowed to decide whether to include ballots from nonaffiliated voters. While there are many examples of states with open primaries across the country, currently only Alaska and Maine use Ranked Choice Voting for statewide elections. Alaska voters narrowly adopted RCV in 2020 by 50.55%,  but its use has been so controversial that Alaskans this November will have the opportunity to repeal it  with the certification of a new ballot measure. In 2023, a supermajority of the Idaho legislature adopted HB 179 prohibiting the use of RCV  (that bill was signed into law by Governor Little). Proposition 1 would reverse this ban. With the sponsors of Proposition 1 combining RCV and a Top 4 primary together, voters only have the option to accept or reject both election changes. They can’t pick one or the other. The question of whether Proposition 1 creates a traditional open primary was subject to a court challenge last year before the Idaho State Supreme Court. The Idaho justices ruled on that specific question saying : “The Initiative does not describe an ‘open primary’ system because it does not propose retaining the separate, party-run primary system currently in place . . . While other states may have used the term, we conclude that it is not distinctive in Idaho given Idaho’s history. Use of ‘open primary’ in this state would not be distinctive because it does not accurately distinguish the new voting system the Initiative proposes from Idaho’s previous open primary system.” Idaho's Secretary of State Phil McGrane sent legislators a detailed memo on July 3 discussing Proposition 1 . While he didn’t see challenges with the Top 4 Primary provision, he shared important considerations about the potential price tag and delayed election results for enacting Ranked Choice Voting. Secretary McGrane wrote: “Transitioning vote tabulation systems would be a very significant undertaking . . . based on previous purchases made by counties, it would likely cost at least $25M to $40M dollars to replace the existing equipment throughout the state . . . we would need to develop a procedure to centralize the information required to process the multiple rounds of tabulation. This can be done, but it will take longer to produce initial election results (i.e., it will take longer for the public and candidates to know the winners of races).” Election experts across the country have expressed concern with imposing RCV. For example, although Washington state already has a Top Two open primary process , there have been proposals in recent years to try to impose Ranked Choice Voting in the state again.  A previous local experiment with RCV was quickly repealed by 71% of Pierce County voters . Though a strong advocate for a Top 2 Open Primary, Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs is adamantly opposed to Ranked Choice Voting. Secretary Hobbs and Spokane County Auditor Vicky Dalton recently wrote : “Before signing onto ranked-choice voting, we ask that you listen to the experts who ensure every Washington voter counts. It is not simple to convert elections from checking one box to ranking several choices . . . Even advocates of changing voting methods have conceded that 29% of voters don’t rank multiple candidates in ranked-choice elections. This means nearly a third of ballots have reduced influence, an unacceptable deprivation. In findings released earlier this year, Princeton University professor Nolan McCarty examined ranked-choice elections in New York City and Alaska and found that minority voters are disproportionately shortchanged by this construct.” Montana's Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen has also spoken out against Ranked Choice Voting. Secretary Jacobsen said : “. . . following implementation of RCV in Alaska, my Alaskan election colleagues referred to it as ‘the biggest nightmare they've ever had to deal with’ – so much in fact, that Alaska is currently in the process of getting RCV repealed. Studies have shown that RCV can decrease voter turnout, create distrust in the process, and disenfranchise voters, specifically minorities.” Taxpayer-funded elections don’t belong to private political groups. Moving a state’s election system to a clean open primary or multi-party primary (preferably Top 2) is worth considering. In general, there aren’t major policy concerns with a Top 2 primary like Washington and California have (also currently under consideration in South Dakota ). In 2008, Justice Thomas wrote  the U.S. Supreme Court opinion upholding that type of multi-party primary because they aren’t party nominating processes but instead structured to advance the two candidates with the most support to the general election. A Top 4 primary is more challenging as a policy, however, as it almost requires by design either a candidate winning without 50% or some type of runoff election. Currently, only Alaska uses a Top 4 primary, but that system may be repealed by voters this year. All eligible voters should be able to participate in a taxpayer-funded election. Adopting open primaries, however, should not be limited to a take-it-or-leave-it proposition tied to the controversy of RCV. Unfortunately, by combining these separate topics, Proposition 1 does not provide voters with the option to adopt open primaries without also imposing the problems associated with Ranked Choice Voting.

They call it “one of the most important functions” of their Annual Convention. But when the Idaho School Boards Association (ISBA) meets in Boise in November to pass a legislative platform, they may want to reconsider their concentration.   Among the 17 proposals being put forward , not one calls for an increase in student outcomes, performance or accountability. More than half request new funding or the ability to raise taxes. In fact, the entire resolution packet uses the word "funding" an astonishing 77 times. The word "outcome" is used just four times.   There are predictable stances, including a resolution urging legislators to oppose further education choice, arguing that the state already has enough: "WHEREAS, Idaho’s students have increasing access to a wide variety of school choice options in the state of Idaho, and parents are free to choose educational services through Idaho’s public education system" The ISBA uses the word "voucher" 16 times in one resolution - the biggest straw man since the Wizard of Oz, considering no legislator has introduced a voucher program. The organization uses misleading statistics on reform laws in other states, inaccurately claiming tax credits would pull funding from public schools, while contending that the programs have had "detrimental effects with little to no positive impact." Nearly 190 studies and the Peabody Journal of Education disagree .   The proposal goes so far as to defend the state’s controversial “Blaine Amendment.” The United States Supreme Court has labeled Blaine Amendments as “bigoted” for their blatant religious and racial discrimination.   ISBA is asking for lottery funds for school maintenance and wants legislators to triple the length of time local school districts can collect a levy, from two years to six, a proposal that would reduce accountability to taxpayers.   Perhaps more startling for taxpayers is the proposal for local option sales taxes instead of levies, an idea that would add more volatility to local school district budgets.   Members of the ISBA are further proposing allowing school districts to hire the spouses of governing board members and counting recess time as instructional hours in elementary schools, insisting that physical activity is part of a student’s learning. The recess resolution states: "Mathematics and reading are the academic topics that are most influenced by physical activity."   Based on the content of some of the resolutions, the ISBA itself may want to take a recess.

The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, became law in 2010 and provisions from the legislation began in 2014. The overall goal of the law was to provide health insurance to an increased number of Americans. To accomplish this, Obamacare created an expansion of Medicaid to include able-bodied 18 to 64 year olds and also established a health insurance exchange with premiums subsidized by taxpayers.   Obamacare has many provisions, many of which have been controversial. The law requires every adult to own health insurance, forces every health insurance company to include costly “essential benefits,” and forces these insurance companies to offer plans to anyone regardless of pre-existing conditions.   The initial insurance company participation in the Obamacare exchanges was very marginal. Many regions of the country had only one or two companies offering plans. The problem was that companies had no idea how many older, sicker patients would sign up for plans versus young, healthy patients. It was estimated that at least 40 percent of enrollees needed to be young and healthy to offset the costs of the sicker patients. Over the past 10 years , the government has increased the taxpayer subsidies in the exchanges to encourage more insurance companies to participate.   Competition among insurance companies for patients in the exchanges has now increased. No surprise, companies are looking for ways to hold costs down, especially when the number of young and healthy patients has never reached the required 40 percent. One proven way for companies to keep their costs low is to pay doctors less than private insurance and less than their competitors. Of course, fewer physicians want to participate with these companies, which creates a limited network of doctors for patients.   A recent study by KFF, formally known as The Kaiser Family Foundation, found that on average, patients in Obamacare exchanges had access to only 40 percent of doctors in any one given area. A quarter of patients had access to only 25 percent or less of physicians in their communities. Interestingly enough, the narrowest networks were in larger metro areas where patients had access to only 34 percent or less of doctors .   Physician participation in Medicaid, the other health insurance expansion in Obamacare, is a bit better. On a national basis, roughly 70 percent of all doctors accept Medicaid patients, even with the poor reimbursements of 35 to 40 percent of what private insurance pays.   When President Obama signed the ACA into law, one of his famous lines was “ if you like your doctor, you can keep that doctor .” It turns out that many Americans can’t keep their doctor or at least have a limited choice of who they can see. This is yet another example of "buyer beware" when government officials make promises.

Note: This is a joint op-ed with Elizabeth New ( Washington Policy Center ) and Jackson Maynard ( Citizen Action Defense Fund ). Washington state employees plan to walk off the job at noon on September 10 to protest the compensation offers from Governor Inslee in the current contract talks. According to KOMO News : “WFSE negotiators said they want to express their frustration with where the labor talks have gone. They called the wage offer proposed by the state … ‘disrespectful’ and are demanding livable pay rates.” What exactly are these “disrespectful” wage proposals? We don’t know. Nor do the state employees being goaded into a walkout by their union leadership. Since 2004 , state negotiations with union executives about how much taxpayers compensate government employees have been secret, even though these talks with the governor’s office involve hundreds of millions of dollars in public spending per biennium. Before 2004, compensation decisions were made transparently with public hearings. They were part of the normal legislative budget process. That’s as it should be. In a  video , WFSE leaders tell public employees that they can’t share details of current pay talks until a tentative agreement has been reached, implying that they are being forbidden from doing so. Ashley Fueston, council vice president, said, “The way that our bargaining structure works here in the state of Washington, we aren’t allowed to share the details of what’s happening within bargaining.”  What Fueston doesn’t say is that secrecy is something union leadership wants and has  fought to maintain . For example, Section 39.13  of the WFSE 2023-25 contract says: "Bargaining sessions will be closed to the press and the public unless agreed otherwise by the chief spokespersons. No proposals will be placed on the parties’ web sites…. There will be no public disclosure or public discussion of the issues being negotiated until resolution or impasse is reached on all issues submitted for negotiations." Keeping taxpayers and public employees in the dark allows union leadership to get away with saying things like a compensation offer is “disrespectful” without actually providing any details. Is the Governor currently offering raises of 1%, 3%, or more? How much more are union executives countering with and asking taxpayers to provide? These are basic financial details that should be publicly available, especially if 50,000 state workers are being told to walk off the job. Government employee contract negotiations should be fully open to the public . At a minimum, all contract proposals and documents to be discussed should be made publicly available before and after the contact meetings, with fiscal analysis showing the potential costs. This would better inform the public and state employees about promises and tradeoffs being proposed so all sides could decide if the offers are in fact “disrespectful” or instead reflect fiscal realities. This type of transparency also makes clear whether one side or the other is being unreasonable in its demands, and quickly reveals whether anyone is acting in bad faith. While we wait for these common-sense transparency reforms to be adopted, Citizen Action Defense Fund (CADF), Washington Policy Center (WPC), and Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) are working together on litigation to provide much-needed transparency after the contracts are agreed to. In March 2023, CADF won its public records lawsuit  against the governor’s Office of Financial Management (OFM) to force the release of initial offers in collective bargaining negotiations after  the parties had signed agreements. The governor’s OFM filed an appeal at the Division II Court of Appeals, however, and the appellate court overturned the trial court’s decision. This ruling conflicts with other public records cases of other appellate courts – including the state supreme court. CADF has since appealed  this public records case with the state’s highest court and WPC and MSPC are joining together on an amicus to help ensure that going forward, the public has access to all the details concerning taxpayer-funded government compensation agreements. While we wait for a decision from the state supreme court on the current public records dispute, we know that what is “disrespectful” is the anti-transparent demand for secrecy that keeps taxpayers and state workers from knowing what compensation offers are actually on the table.  Before calling on 50,000 public servants to walk off the job, providing basic transparency about the taxpayer-funded compensation offers should be step one. Elizabeth New is Director of the Center for Worker Rights at Washington Policy Center. Jackson Maynard is the Executive Director at Citizen Action Defense Fund. Jason Mercier is Vice President and Director of Research at Mountain States Policy Center.

The Mountain States Policy Center team had the privilege of recently attending the 2024 State Policy Network (SPN) Conference in Phoenix, Arizona. This annual gathering brings together think tanks, policy experts, and thought leaders from across the country to discuss the most pressing issues facing our states and nation. Our team was eager to engage in meaningful discussions on a wide range of topics, from agricultural policies to tax reform and everything in between. We were also excited to learn that our display booth at the conference won an award for "Best Exhibit Design." As we discussed critical policy areas, the conference provided an excellent platform to exchange ideas, learn from others, and advocate for the principles that drive our work—free markets and limited government. One of the highlights for our team was the panel discussion I had the honor of participating in. As the Director of the Junkermier Center for Technology and Innovation, I was invited to speak on a panel addressing one of the most crucial issues facing the Mountain States Region: broadband implementation and the balance of power between the public and private sectors . Broadband access is essential for economic growth, education, and overall quality of life in today’s digital age. However, achieving universal access requires a careful balance between government involvement and private-sector innovation. On the panel, I emphasized the importance of allowing the market to lead while ensuring that public policies support, rather than stifle, technological advancements. The discussion was exciting, with varying viewpoints on the best path forward. While some may advocate for greater government intervention to ensure equitable access, I stressed the need for policies that encourage private investment and competition. The takeaway was clear: collaboration between the public and private sectors is key to achieving widespread broadband access, especially in rural and underserved areas. Beyond my panel, the conference featured discussions on a myriad of issues. The MSPC team engaged in valuable conversations that will undoubtedly shape our work in the months to come. We explored strategies to enhance market-driven solutions in agriculture, debated the merits of different tax policies, and examined how regulatory reforms can foster innovation across various sectors. The 2024 SPN Conference was not just an opportunity to learn and share but also to reaffirm our commitment to advancing free market principles throughout the Mountain States region. The knowledge and insights gained from this event will be instrumental as we continue to advocate for policies that prioritize individual freedom, economic prosperity, and limited government.

Across the country, local municipalities and county governments are taking on the task of establishing their own broadband utilities, often funded by taxpayer dollars. While the intention is to provide better internet access to underserved areas, this approach is deeply flawed and risks imposing an undue burden on taxpayers who may never use these services. We strongly believe that broadband expansion should be left to the qualified and experienced private sector providers, or at least managed through public-private partnerships (PPPs) that leverage the best of both worlds. A number of cities and counties are venturing into the broadband business, raising taxes or fees to fund these initiatives. We are even seeing this here in Idaho, especially looking towards the East at cities like Idaho Falls . This trend reflects a worrying shift towards government overreach, where local governments are assuming roles better suited for private companies with the expertise and infrastructure to deliver reliable service. Private providers with years of experience are better positioned to provide high-quality, cost-effective solutions. The City of Eagle, here In the Treasure Valley of Idaho, recently decided to scale back its ambitious citywide broadband network , opting instead for a phased approach that prioritizes connecting new subdivisions over existing neighborhoods. This move shows a recognition of the financial and logistical complexities involved in municipal broadband projects, but it still misses the mark by taking on the project itself. Eagle’s decision to go it alone , despite the obvious benefits of involving private sector expertise, highlights the need for a broader rethink in how we approach broadband expansion. With billions in federal funding available through programs like the Infrastructure Investment Bill and American Jobs Act , states have a unique opportunity to expand broadband access efficiently and effectively. However, this influx of funds should not be seen as a blank check for municipalities to create their own broadband utilities. Instead, the focus should be on maximizing these investments through partnerships with private providers who can bring the necessary expertise and efficiency to the table. Our recent study highlights key strategies for expanding broadband access , emphasizing the importance of letting private companies lead the charge. Public-private partnerships can provide the oversight and accountability that governments desire, without the risks and inefficiencies associated with government-run services. This approach not only ensures taxpayer dollars are spent wisely but also promotes competition and innovation in the broadband market. Qualified private sector providers have the experience, resources, and technological know-how to expand broadband efficiently. They are driven by competition, which naturally fosters innovation, cost reduction, and service improvements. Unlike government-run utilities, private companies have the incentive to meet customer needs quickly and effectively, without the bureaucratic red tape that often slows down public sector projects. Moreover, private companies can adapt to the unique needs of different regions, whether it’s deploying fiber in dense urban areas or using innovative solutions like fixed wireless or satellite technology in rural communities. This was highlighted in a recent docu-series by NCTA named "Every Last Mile." Local governments should leverage these capabilities rather than attempt to replicate them at taxpayer expense. If local governments feel compelled to be involved, the best approach is through PPPs, where the public sector sets the framework and provides oversight, while private companies handle the heavy lifting of implementation. This model ensures that government resources are used efficiently, private expertise is fully utilized, and risks are shared. By working together, both sectors can achieve the goal of expanding broadband access without burdening taxpayers with unnecessary costs. We learned after the COVID-19 restrictions that broadband is essential for economic growth, education, and overall quality of life. However, local governments should avoid the temptation to take on roles that belong in the hands of experienced private-sector providers. By prioritizing market-driven solutions and embracing public-private partnerships where necessary, we can ensure that broadband expansion is both effective and fiscally responsible. Let’s keep the focus on what works: a free market approach that leverages private sector innovation and expertise, ensuring that our communities are connected without unnecessary government overreach.

Across the country, states are increasing education choice offerings such as Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) or tax credits to provide families with more options. Earlier this year we wrote about the 29 states providing parents and students with these choices . Several states are also in the process of expanding their existing education choice programs to cover even more students. Discussing the importance of education choice, former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently said : “We already have a choice system in education. If you are of means, you will move to a district where the schools are good and the houses are expensive like Palo Alto, California. If you’re really wealthy, you will send your kids to private school. So, who’s stuck in failing neighborhood schools? Poor kids. A lot of them minority kids. How can you say you’re for civil rights, how can you say you’re for the poor when you’re condemning those children to not be able to read? By the time they’re in 3rd grade, they’re never going to read. So, if you want to say that school choice and vouchers and charter schools are destroying the public schools, fine, you write that editorial in the Washington Post . But then don’t send your kids to Sidwell Friends [a D.C. private school].”  This summer we asked education officials in South Dakota, New Hampshire, and Montana how their different approaches to education choice are working. Below are details on their programs and responses to our questions from  the New Hampshire Department of Education, Montana Office of Public Instruction, and South Dakota Department of Education .   South Dakota launched the “Partners in Education Tax Credit Program” in 2016. It offers tax credits to insurance companies that contribute to nonprofit scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs). These organizations then award private school scholarships to students who meet specific income and grade criteria. As of the 2022-2023 school year, there are 1,671 students participating in 45 schools, with an average of $1,972 scholarship value. New Hampshire has three different school choice programs. The Education Freedom Account (EFA) Program offers students from low- and middle-income families access to Education Savings Accounts. These accounts can be used to cover a range of education-related costs, such as private school tuition, tutoring, textbooks, curriculum materials, educational therapies, and other expenses. New Hampshire’s Town Tuitioning Program, reintroduced and expanded in 2017 to include private schools, permits towns without district schools at a certain grade level to allocate public funds for students to attend any public or approved private, non-religious school, whether in or out of state. The district that participates in the "tuitioning" process pays the tuition directly to the selected "receiving" schools. The Education Tax Credit Program provides tax incentives to businesses and individuals who contribute to scholarship organizations (SOs). These nonprofit organizations offer scholarships for private schools or support for homeschooling to students in need. Eligible families can receive scholarships to cover costs associated with private schooling, tutoring, online education, college or university classes, and homeschooling expenses. Montana’s Special Needs Equal Opportunity Education Savings Account program offers families of students who qualify as a “child with disabilities” under the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) an ESA. This account can provide up to $8,000 annually, which can be used flexibly for educational and therapeutic purposes, including private school tuition. The funds can also be utilized for education-related transportation costs. The Tax Credits for Contributions to Student Scholarship Organizations program allows individuals and businesses to receive a 100 percent tax credit for donations made to approved student scholarship organizations (SSOs). These nonprofit organizations offer scholarships for private school education and tutoring. The statewide cap for tax credits is set at $5 million, with no individual taxpayer allowed to claim more than $200,000 in credits. Starting in the 2016–17 school year, Montana’s SSOs began providing scholarships for students to attend private schools or receive tutoring.   MSPC: Do you believe individual education accounts are helping to advance education options/outcomes in your state?   New Hampshire Department of Education : “Yes. New Hampshire will continue to advocate and support the educational choice movement, as it realizes that families must have the ability to choose whichever school or learning environment best meets the needs of their child.” Montana Office of Public Instruction : “The ESA is another innovative solution to increase academic success for students of varying abilities. The program supports students and families with personalized learning opportunities. The program will begin during the 2024-2025 school year.”   MSPC: Has the availability of education choice options harmed traditional public schools?   New Hampshire Department of Education : “No. By providing more schooling options, students are finding their ideal pathway toward motivated and engaged learning.” Montana Office of Public Instruction : “The bill is effective July 1, 2024. The OPI is preparing ESA applications and guidance documents. OPI has drafted a  preliminary report that was presented to the Interim Education Committee  meeting on January 9, 2023. Once finalized, these calculations will be available to the public. The preliminary estimates provide a range between $5,000- $7,000 per student.”   MSPC: Do you believe education choice options should continue to be offered to families and students?   New Hampshire Department of Education : “Yes. New Hampshire’s Education Freedom Account Program has grown 58% in the past year – from 3,025 scholarships awarded in 2023 to 4,770 scholarships awarded in 2024, showing a clear demand for this model not only in New Hampshire, but nationwide.” Montana Office of Public Instruction : "Superintendent Arntzen is in full support of the ESA program." Additional comments about education choice South Dakota Department of Education : “The Department of Education is interested in the academic success of all students in South Dakota, whether they be educated in public, private, tribal/BIE schools, or through home schooling. Having all of these options available means that families can choose the best option that will fit the needs of their children. The South Dakota Partners in Education (SDPE) tax credit is a program designed to help families pay for private schooling in South Dakota. It has certainly helped families to afford private schooling and allowing for that expanded choice is good for the educational outcomes of those who take advantage of the scholarships.” New Hampshire Department of Education : “Earlier this year, EdChoice honored New Hampshire’s EFA program as the most popular educational choice program in the country, while also citing a far less bureaucratic and far more efficient process with the highest level of program accountability and integrity in the country.” Montana Office of Public Instruction : “Superintendent Arntzen created an Education Savings Account Steering Committee. This committee will provide strategic advisory support to ensure the administrative process of the ESA program meets the needs of students and families enrolled in the program. Read more about the committee in the  Steering Committee Overview . The 2023 graduation rate for students classified as special education was 76.14%, compared to the state-wide rate of 85.67%. More needs to be done to help increase graduation rates and the ESA is designed to put Montana students first.”   We’d like to thank the Department of Education in South Dakota, Department of Education in New Hampshire, and Office of Public Instruction in Montana for their support for education choice options for families and for answering our questions.

I farm, homeschool, garden, bake bread, raise chickens, and make my own yogurt. It seems I’m following the fad of the homesteading hobbies. However, I’m not fully converted. I balk at the principle of drinking raw milk.   I have been known to give lectures to friends and random strangers asking me if my family drinks raw milk. I’m the person that interrupts other moms that were talking about raw milk. And when it comes to reducing raw milk regulations, I’ve told multiple people where to put that idea out to pasture. Why? Because it is dangerous, people are misinformed and labels do NOT work.     A recent foodborne illness outbreak in Idaho shows the dangers of drinking raw milk. 18 people were infected in early August by Campylobacter pathogen. 17 of the 18 individuals consumed raw milk from an Idaho dairy. A difficult time for the families affected by this outbreak, and a challenge for the dairy farmer who diligently found the pathogen’s source in a water heater, but by that time the contaminated product was already consumed.   For the better, Idaho has a low regulatory burden , but in the case of raw milk, the labeling requirement might not be enough.   My dad was a dairy veterinarian and I spent years going on farm calls. I was in the muck, playing with calves, moving cows, playing in the cottonseed piles. Through it all I was never allowed to drink raw milk. When a family friend’s young granddaughter experienced kidney failure in 2012 because of raw milk consumption, our family’s caution became understandable.   But maybe, you’ve heard raw milk could give health benefits and strengthen your immune system? That sounds great. Did you know you could also get E. Coli and your children are more likely to have severe, life-threatening kidney problems because of it?   If you drink raw milk your risk is significantly higher than if you drink pasteurized milk. Raw milk drinkers are 840 times more likely to be sickened versus pasteurized milk, 45 times more likely to be hospitalized, and it causes 96% of illnesses related to contaminated dairy products. Raw milk regulations have historically reflected this danger and made it difficult to purchase in many states.   Depending on the state, raw milk sales have been completely illegal, only available for animal food, or require cow ownership by the consumers. Over the last two decades, these regulations have softened and disappeared across the country, to the consumer's detriment .   Certain dangerous or high-risk goods should require barriers or obstacles to purchase. These barriers create a natural fence consumers must climb, hopefully gaining some degree of information before consuming the dangerous product. This caution is needed because people may be misinformed, and children and the elderly are the most vulnerable to these illnesses.   Despite knowing the dangers, many states recently removed the raw milk purchasing regulations and more states are relying on the warning label to dissuade consumers. One legislator from Louisiana said, “I figure free people drink what free people want to drink. This is still America.”   Slackening raw milk regulations ignores the risk, relying on ineffective safety labels. In a world where California’s Proposition 65 requires over 800 chemicals and ingredients to be labeled as known carcinogens, any safety label seems pointless . Aggravating the situation, some individuals are more likely to consume a product or engage in a practice when a safety warning is issued.   Imagine labels as wolves  versus puppies. Though rare, wolves will eat you if given the chance. Puppies are common, but their bite is rarely, if ever, harmful. Labeling practices should focus on identifying wolves, but our current practices identify everything as a wolf. This generalization creates useless labels, making dangerous products more threatening.   To our misfortune policymakers have over-warned and under-educated, leaving us vulnerable to wolves hiding among the puppies. Raw milk has the potential of being a wolf. Consumer safety would be better protected by discretionary labeling versus a blanket approach, but that possibility no longer exists.   Generally, we favor reducing regulations but in the case of public safety, targeted and specific protections can be worthwhile. It’s time to rip the label off the raw milk situation and realize that labels will prove ineffective at informing consumers. Health risks remain, however, and consumers need some purchasing obstacle that will encourage them to obtain important information, before milking a potentially dangerous fad.

K-12 public school spending is at an all-time high, and America spends more per student than any other developed nation. In 2022, the national average for K-12 spending was $16,340 per pupil. Comparatively, Washington spent $18,175 per pupil, Idaho spent $9,670, per pupil, Montana spent $13,582 per pupil, and Wyoming spent $18,529 per pupil. Some argue that these spending numbers are directly correlated with education scores. Does increased spending result in improved test scores? It should be considered that education scores have fallen in the past couple of years due to numerous factors, including the COVID-19 lockdowns that had a drastic effect on K-12 education. But still, if this theory is true, then there should seem to be some positive trend among the states that spend the most per pupil. With the recent uptick of parents choosing alternative schooling options including homeschool, private school, and public  charter schools within the past four years, concerned parents and stakeholders are taking a closer look into education outcomes. The data shows that within the Mountain States per pupil K-12 spending has been steadily increasing. This reflects a nationwide trend as well. Some assume the notion that more money spent equals more desirable educational outcomes. But, as the numbers show, that is not the case. From a nationwide macro perspective, spending has increased while outcomes have been stagnant and slightly decreasing.   For a more focused case study, let’s take the example of New York. It has been the top spender in K-12 for the last two decades, yet it remains in the lower middle of the pack in educational benchmarks. In contrast, Idaho has consistently been the lowest spender in this category. But, over the past twenty years, Idaho has outperformed New York in 4th grade math, 8th grade math, and 8th grade reading. Idaho averages just over one-third of what New York spends year over year. Another example would be looking at Washington state. The figures show generally decent test scores year over year, while taking a drastic hit during the Covid era from 2020-2022. One might then look at the state’s 2022 spending of $18,175 per pupil and correlate its above-average spending with its above-average results. But, upon further examination, this would prove false. Washington’s largest two-year spending increases were from 2017 to 2019 when it jumped from $11,815 to $14,382. During this same time, Washington’s 4th-grade math, 4th-grade reading, and 8th-grade reading scores all fell from its previous benchmark. The numbers clearly show that the states that spend the most do not have the best outcomes and the states that spend the least do not have the worst outcomes. While the political narrative is that the more funding put into the K-12 system, the better the output of scores, the data show a different result. Each state has different funding models, different itemized budgets, and unique challenges. The overwhelming conclusion is that there is little if no positive correlation between spending per pupil and average scores by state. There are numerous factors that affect the quality of education our children are receiving besides raw spending. Efforts should be made to tie new spending to desired educational performance outcomes .

A new piece of energy legislation in Congress called the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 (EPRA) has made its way through the committee process and will soon hit the Senate floor. The bipartisan bill, sponsored by Senator Manchin (D-WV) and Senator Barrasso (R-WY), aims to speed up the approval process for new energy projects. It recently passed the Senate Energy Committee in a strong 15-4 vote.   There has been a big push at the federal level to decrease carbon emissions and transition out of fossil fuels. This has resulted in new, innovative projects like the Terrapower nuclear plant in Wyoming . This legislation hopes to encourage these endeavors and remove certain restrictions and timelines that needlessly slow down the process of introducing new energy plants and projects. Senator Barrasso said about the bill : “Our bipartisan bill secures future access to oil and gas resources on federal lands and waters. We fix the disastrous  Rosemont  decision so that we can produce more American minerals instead of relying on China. We permanently end President Biden’s reckless ban on natural gas exports. And we ensure we can strengthen our electric grid while protecting customers. This legislation is an urgent and important first step towards improving our nation’s broken permitting process.” The bill originally didn’t have any provisions for hydropower, but Senator Murkowski (R-AK) worked to change that. It now gives more power to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to approve, deny, and extend projects. In collaboration with other departments such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA’s U.S. Forest Service, FERC can approve extensions for projects that were originally on an 8-year timeline to be completed on a 12-year timeline. This gives developers breathing room to be able to cast a bigger vision for projects that don’t have to fit into an 8-year construction process. EPRA drastically reforms the judicial review process. It changes the deadline for developers to file a lawsuit against an agency for denying their project from 6 years to 150 days. While controversial, this keeps projects out of limbo and provides a tighter deadline and clarity for developers to know whether or not they can proceed with their energy developments. In a similar vein, under ERPA agencies must act on remands of projects within 180 days. Currently, there isn’t a deadline at all causing the process to be dragged out unnecessarily. A big attraction of EPRA is that it aims to not show bias to a certain energy source. In section 210, it explains that for the Secretary of the Interior to approve a solar or wind project on federal land, at least half of the land or 2,000 acres must have been offered for oil and gas leasing in the previous year. This ensures that intermittent energy sources don’t get approved purely because some view them as “clean.” Gas and oil continue to have a seat at the table, and ERPA in some ways codifies that. But, EPRA also has a section that creates a goal for renewable energy. It changes the goal of the DOI from 25 gigawatts to 50 gigawatts. It proposes to streamline and make the process of renewables in every stage shorter including the applications, issue of intent, cost recovery agreement, and right of way. Other highlights include changing the definition of “mill site” to allow miners to have mill sites on their work site to increase efficiency. It also shortens the process for transmission projects that are in America’s interest by cutting out a stage that usually lasts between 2-5 years designating National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors based on lengthy “needs” assessments. The bill focuses on geothermal projects as well and attempts to cut as much red tape as possible to speed up the process and projects.   The ERPA bill casts a wide net in reforming energy policy. It changes procedures for judicial review, mining, liquified natural gas, geothermal and hydroelectric power, drilling, and federal land lease programs. Some of the attempts to cut red tape gives more power to agencies such as FERC to make the final and only call on approval or denial of major projects in some cases. Overall, this legislation lessens the burden for developers to innovate and deliver high-quality energy to our nation’s grid. Construction of new transmission lines has dropped since 2010, from averaging around 1,700 miles of new high voltage transmission to now just 55 miles recently reported in 2023. Congress needs to urgently address our energy crises as we are feeling the effects of attempting to rely on intermittent power sources during times of extreme weather events . Streamlining the inefficient permitting process to allow innovation and creating new reliable energy projects is a great place to start.