California, like many of the states in our region, has faced some of the most devastating wildfires in recent history. The "Golden State" is leading the charge in wildfire prevention by integrating cutting-edge technology into its fire management strategies. One of the most significant advancements in this area is the use of AI-trained cameras that monitor the landscape around the clock, identifying fires before any traditional emergency calls are made. As previously highlighted by Carl Smith of the Governing, on the morning of September 5, 2023, a wildfire ignited in a redwood forest in Humboldt County, California. This fire was swiftly identified by one of over a thousand AI-trained cameras deployed across the state. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) was alerted immediately, allowing firefighters to contain the blaze to just a quarter of an acre. This rapid response is the fruit of a decade-long effort to harness AI in wildfire detection and prevention. As wildfires in the United States, and especially in our Mountain States region, become more frequent and severe, the need for advanced detection systems has never been greater. AI offers a solution by continuously monitoring vast areas, analyzing data for early signs of fire, and alerting human operators when potential fires are detected. This system not only improves response times but also leverages historical data to enhance accuracy and reliability. While the benefits of AI in wildfire detection are evident, it is essential to implement these technologies with appropriate oversight. Ensuring that AI systems are transparent, accountable, and effective requires a framework that balances innovation with regulation. Oversight helps maintain the integrity of AI applications, ensuring they meet safety standards and public expectations without compromising privacy or efficiency. Neal Driscoll, a professor at UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography and director of ALERTCalifornia, emphasizes the importance of data-driven decisions. ALERTCalifornia, a public safety program, utilizes multidisciplinary expertise and supercomputing resources to enhance understanding and response to climate-driven events, including wildfires. ALERTCalifornia's highlights: "The AI platform is a new tool in the toolbox and allows data to drive firefighting decisions, which saves lives, protects habitats, and infrastructure. In its first season, the AI platform was utilized in all 21 CAL FIRE Dispatch Centers and detected over 1,200 fires across California, beating 911 call reporting over 30% of the time." Expanding the free market’s involvement in AI can drive further innovation and efficiency. Private sector companies, driven by competition and profit incentives, can develop and implement advanced technologies more rapidly and cost-effectively than government entities. By creating a regulatory environment that encourages private investment and innovation, the government can utilize the strengths of the free market to enhance wildfire prevention efforts. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is an example of private sector involvement in AI development for wildfire detection. The utility company supported the initial AI work for California’s forest surveillance network, recognizing the potential to mitigate risks and liabilities associated with wildfires. Such collaborations between public and private entities exemplify how market-driven initiatives can complement government efforts in addressing critical issues. California’s AI-driven wildfire detection system serves as a model for other states and regions facing similar challenges. The integration of AI with traditional fire management practices can significantly improve early detection and response, reducing the impact of wildfires. States like Washington, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho should be looking to replicate California’s success by adopting similar technologies and strategies. The use of AI in wildfire detection represents a significant advancement in California’s efforts to prevent and manage wildfires. By expanding the role of the free market and fostering public-private partnerships, we can drive innovation and efficiency in wildfire prevention. As we continue to face the realities of increasing wildfire risks, leveraging AI with proper oversight will be essential in safeguarding our communities and natural resources.

The Mountain States Policy Manual is a 200-page guide filled with facts, figures, research and more than 80 recommendations – it is an in-depth guide intended to serve as a resource for citizens, policymakers, the media and those who wish to improve the lives of citizens in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Washington state. We present these recommendations based on years of research and insight. Now more than ever, free-market successes need to be communicated effectively in the marketplace of ideas. The manual offers citizens many practical ideas and hope for the future. It will provide media with background and research needed to improve accuracy. And it will offer policymakers of any political persuasion a go-to resource for navigating key issues facing the Mountain West, all rooted in proven, free market solutions. The Mountain States Policy Manual is structured to provide accessible and comprehensive information on a variety of policy areas. Each section has overviews of the issue, current challenges, policy recommendations, and case studies or examples of successful implementation. ​ Introduction ​ Chapter 1: Fiscal policy Require a supermajority vote for state and local tax increases Use performance-based budgeting to focus on outcomes Adopt automatic tax rebates tied to revenue triggers Use revenue triggers to reduce income tax rates Move local tax levies and bonds to November general election Idaho’s controversial grocery tax Sugary beverage taxes are poor public policy Adopt a 30-day work requirement for income tax liability End taxpayer subsidies to government unions Support efforts to require federal balanced budget amendment Support efforts to call fiscally focused Convention of the states ​ Chapter 2: Tax transparency Create a Tax Transparency website Adopt Truth in Taxation to improve property tax accountability Use taxpayer receipt to provide snapshot of government spending End political messaging on taxpayer refund checks Prevent overcollection for school district bond payments Chapter 3: Governance Provide at least 3-day notice of bills scheduled for public hearing Provide details of policies under consideration Authorize an open government ombudsman Require legislative oversight of emergency powers Prohibit secret negotiations with public sector unions Consider open primaries without imposing Ranked Choice Voting Authorize a statewide voters’ guide Do not join the National Popular Vote compact ​ Chapter 4: Education Spending more does not equal better outcomes Focus education funding on results Put the principal in charge of the school Provide students and families with Education Savings Accounts or education choice tax credits Adopt the Public School Transparency Act Increase the availability of public charter schools Adopt the College Career Transparency Act Chapter 5: Economic & Business Climate Pillars of regulatory reform and oversight Adopt sunset provisions Embrace occupational licensing reform Use competition to reduce workers’ compensation costs Avoid costly minimum wage increases Reduce wait times for building permits Review impact fees for legal validity Advance market options to improve housing affordability Provide constitutional protections for the Right to Work ​ Chapter 6: Health care Require health care price transparency Make telemedicine permanent Don’t expand the Hospital 340B program without reforms first Reduce health insurance mandates, offer more insurance options Abolish certificate of need requirements Reject further Medicaid expansion Expand use and availability of Health Savings Accounts Chapter 7: Technology & Innovation Use AI to improve government efficiency, save taxpayer money Protect the internet from misguided “net neutrality” efforts Expand broadband coverage in a responsible way Be wary of constitutionally suspect content filter policies ​ Chapter 8: Agriculture Minimize the regulatory burden imposed on farmers Protect agricultural water uses and water storage Balance land development, property rights with necessity of land for food production Agricultural labor needs to be accessible Taxes should not unfairly favor or punish farmers Protect the ability of small farms to thrive ​ Chapter 9: Land Use & the Environment Protect the numerous benefits of the Snake River dams Work to restore more state control over federal land Demand higher federal PILT reimbursements Support prescribed burns to help manage forests Avoid trendy policies that have little environmental benefit ​​ Chapter 10: Transportation Three keys for responsible transportation spending The most efficient and effective mass transit options Adopt Truth in Labeling for gas taxes Avoid adopting a mileage tax Resist stifling rideshare regulations About the authors Order your copy of the Policy Manual on Amazon today!

K-12 public education spending has increased, but where is the money going? The graphic below shows the increase in K-12 staffing nationally, as well as students, since the year 2000. It is one of the most popular charts available today - and that's because it tells a story: huge increases in administrative staffing (both district and at each school), yet small increases in teachers and students. We wanted to know how those numbers look in our states. So we started in Idaho, by reviewing staffing and student enrollment trends over the past 10 years. The statistics are easily accessible on the state Department of Education website. And they show a similar pattern. Student and teacher increases track together - eight percent each. But administrators - specifically school administrators (principals and assistant principals) see increases nearly three times higher. Overall, the most dramatic increases are seen in Assistant Superintendents, Assistant Principals, counselors and school nurses. The raw data also gives you an idea of the other categories seeing large staffing increases. Like most other states, Idaho's education spending has increased dramatically over the past decade. Unfortunately, if money doesn't get to the classroom, it is unlikely to have a huge impact on student outcomes. We'll review Montana's, Washington's and Wyoming's staffing data and student enrollment in the coming weeks.

Most states are getting ready to proudly celebrate 250 years of our Republic. One state isn’t so sure though. Compare and contrast the different approaches of Northwest neighbors Washington and Idaho to America’s pending 250th birthday. As reported by the Idaho Capital Sun: “While America’s 250th birthday is still one year, 11 months and 23 days away, Idaho state officials and agencies are already hard at work planning a celebration worthy of the country’s semiquincentennial.” The Center Square reports, however: “Planners of Washington state's participation in a national celebration of the 250th anniversary of America's founding want to put heavy emphasis on some of the country's darker history . . . ‘Not everybody is exactly excited about celebrating America.’” Idaho Governor Brad Little has a different take: “The United States of America is the greatest nation in the world and worthy of celebration. As we approach the 250th anniversary of American independence, Idaho is proud to recognize our nation’s triumphant history and the contributions of the Gem State. I look forward to seeing the America250 in Idaho initiative inspire patriotism, build civic participation, and celebrate freedom.” For those concerned that Washington State plans to pull the candles off the nation’s celebration cake in two years, know that some statewide officials are pushing back on the lack of celebratory spirit. Former Congressman and current Washington Lt. Governor Denny Heck was quoted by The Center Square as saying: “I’m disappointed, and I’m disappointed in a couple regards. I’m disappointed that there’s no specific reference and precious attention to commemorating the founding of the republic . . .  As an old guy, I remember the bicentennial, and I remember it for a couple of reasons. One being it didn’t deal with all the difficult parts of our journey at all, and secondly, I remember we didn’t have a problem celebrating and commemorating." Governor Little and Lt. Gov. Heck are correct that 250 years of our Republic are worth celebrating. The inevitable failings of mankind should not be an indictment of the mosaic masterpiece that is the American experiment of self-governance. Our Republic is worth celebrating, and to answer Benjamin Franklin, we hope to keep it.

It appears activists have the signatures they need to place a measure on the Idaho ballot this fall that would make significant changes to Idaho's election system. Supporters of the measure to adopt Ranked Choice Voting and open primaries submitted their initiative to the Secretary of State in June. There were questions then, and even more questions now. Idaho's Secretary of State Phil McGrane has sent legislators a detailed memo on the implementation of such a drastic change in Idaho elections. As McGrane notes, opening primaries would have little impact in either cost or counting of votes. But the RCV part of the ballot measure is much more difficult, specifically because of the vote tabulation systems currently in place. The convoluted and controversial system would require voters to rank candidates in their order of preference. Votes would be counted in rounds, as the candidate with the fewest votes would be eliminated, and those votes would be transferred to the second choice. If voters only chose one candidate, their vote could be tossed out. McGrane notes: "Transitioning vote tabulation systems would be a very significant undertaking. Each county determines what system best fits its requirements and purchases the equipment needed. Without a competitive request for proposal process, it is not easy to estimate the cost of replacing our tabulation equipment. Our office has contacted other states to try. Still, there are too many differences between states to reliably predict what this might cost in Idaho. However, 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." Furthermore, the Secretary of State warns that RCV could cause delays in the counting process. "The final consideration regarding tabulation is the coordination between counties. Currently, each county conducts and tabulates its election results and then uploads the final results to the state election night results reporting tool. In order to process the multiple rounds of vote tabulation required by the proposed Instant Runoff Voting process, ballots would have to be centrally aggregated and processed, or ballot image information would have to be electronically shared to tabulate races that cross county lines. To establish the candidate receiving the fewest votes and subsequently eliminated in a round of tabulation, all the votes from each county involved need to be aggregated to ensure the same candidate is eliminated across all involved counties. During the 2024 legislative session, we added a new provision to Idaho’s voting system specifications prohibiting these machines from being connected to the Internet. This change is considered an industry best practice for security purposes and was recommended by an industry expert. This change also likely prevents counties from sharing the needed information electronically. As a result, 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)." Would voters have signed the initiative knowing it could cost $40 million to implement? It's hard to say. But as Secretary McGrane notes, "I recommend a statutory change to allow the fiscal impact statement to be amended with new information on future petitions after the completed petitions are filed with the Secretary of State, but before the question is added to the voter pamphlet and goes to voters. This would add greater transparency to the process, and a letter such as this may have been avoided." While open primaries is a policy decision that can be debated, including RCV in the measure makes it not only convoluted but also presents major headaches for supporters and voters. Article 3, Section 16 of the Idaho State Constitution makes it clear that “every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith.” Several years ago, lawmakers amended state law to require ballot initiatives only address a single subject. The reasoning here is simple: to ensure that it is easy to interpret voter intent. If a measure has multiple subjects, it is difficult to know what voters may have been approving or rejecting. A single subject rule is not unusual. Of the states that allow for a citizen-initiated ballot measure, more than half have single-subject rules. Montana’s Supreme Court recently cited single subject requirements to strike down an initiative that would have capped yearly property tax increases but would have also capped the taxable value. South Dakota’s Supreme Court did the same, ruling a voter-approved initiative legalizing marijuana was unconstitutional because recreational marijuana, medical marijuana and hemp were three different subjects. Single subject rules also exist to clarify actions of legislatures. In fact, 43 state constitutions contain single subject requirements for legislation. Mississippi and Arkansas apply the requirement to just spending bills. Supporters of the election ballot initiative say it will give Idahoans “more freedom and better leadership.” Whether that is true is ultimately up to voters to decide. But with two distinct subjects, it will be more difficult to try to determine and implement their real intent. As it currently stands, are voters supporting open primaries or ranked choice voting with the ballot measure? They are two very different things. By linking the subjects together, voters are being denied the opportunity to support one or the other - something single subject restrictions are designed to prevent. It is a near certainty the ballot measure will be challenged in court. Both Washington's (Steve Hobbs) and Montana's (Christi Jacobsen) Secretary of State have spoken out against ranked choice voting, with Hobbs saying "ranked-choice voting adds a layer of complexity to voting that threatens to disenfranchise people who aren’t experts at the process."

The latest announcement in the proposed merger of Kroger and Albertsons is that the companies will divest 579 stores in 18 states plus the District of Columbia. The business jargon – “divest” – has produced some scary headlines, with various news outlets reporting that communities will “lose” their local stores. In reality, no stores will close, no front line employees will be laid off, and Kroger and Albertsons are doing exactly what the government told them to do when it announced it was challenging the merger. Kroger-Albertsons would sell the stores to C&S, a wholesale grocery company more than 100 years old. C&S has committed that no stores will close, frontline employees will remain, and all existing collective bargaining agreements will continue. The goal of the divesture, then, is too ease fears that communities that have multiple Albertsons or Kroger locations would see closures. There is no reason, then, that Washington state taxpayers should be dishing out $1,100 an hour to fight the merger. Instead of reducing competition, the merger of Albertsons and Kroger would actually create more competition. Walmart/Sam’s Club makes up nearly a third – 30 percent – of the U.S. grocery market share. Costco tallies another 7 percent. Amazon is moving quickly and accounts for more than 5 percent. And consider this: Amazon Prime, Walmart+ and Costco have more than 250 million subscriptions. Even if the Albertsons-Kroger merger proceeds, it would account for just 9 percent of nationwide sales, according to the International Center for Law and Economics. But what it would do is get the attention of the big three – increasing competition with their 42% of the current market share. Furthermore, Walmart, Costco and Amazon do not have a unionized workforce – Albertsons and Kroger do and have earned the endorsement of the merger from union leaders. The government claims workers would be harmed, but union leaders likely know better. Unfortunately, government regulators seem to be relying on an outdated model to determine what is best for consumers and grocery stores. Does a grocery store have to be a traditional brick and mortar location? Are online supermarkets be counted? If not, why? It is clear that Amazon, Walmart and Costco directly compete with Kroger and Albertsons, so why wouldn’t they be included in any merger analysis? Nearly 30 years ago, supermarkets accounted for 81% of retail sales. That dropped to 61% a decade later, and today, it’s near 50%. Where have all of the customers gone? Online and warehouse stores. An economist with the Strategic Resource Group recently told Yahoo Finance "Kroger’s acquisition of Albertsons is the last, best, and final chance to level the playing field."

Research shows that one of the most effective tools for improving school outcomes is to put the principal in charge of the school. What exactly does this mean? Isn’t the principal already in charge of the school? Not exactly. In many districts, principals are simply viewed as the manager instead of the leader. Principals should, instead, be considered the CEOs of their schools. They should be given a budget, and then decide how to spend it. They should have the authority to hire and fire their staff. They should have the authority to shape educational programs that best suit their students’ needs. And after all of this happens, they should be held responsible for student outcomes. This kind of education reform is not complicated, and had been successfully adopted in places like Baltimore, where former CEO Dr. Andres Alonso put his faith in his principals. School principals became responsible for more than 80% of their budgets, and those who were unsuccessful were removed. “Many principals were excited regarding the new changes and greater levels of responsibility, now having control of the school budget, curriculum and staffing decisions and developing strategies for school improvement. Dr. Alonso and the team understood that no two schools are necessarily alike and each has a unique context with specific needs. Now, principals had to think much differently about their work. For example, in the past there were examples of principals who felt there was little that could be done regarding curriculum materials that did not meet the reading needs of upper grade students. With the change, principals and teachers had much greater authority and investment in and responsibility for making decisions that best meet the particular learning needs for students at the school level. And as a result, principals were being held accountable for doing so.” The results were astounding. Not only did student outcomes improve, but schools were, at the time, removed from federal “needs to improve” lists. Unfortunately, as Baltimore got away from the reform, it returned to its struggles. Still, policymakers and education leaders should note the success that came along with the change.

It’s a temporary win, but a big one nonetheless. An attempt by a coalition of teachers unions and public school activists to block implementation of Education Savings Accounts in Montana has been rejected by a district court judge Mike Menahan. Montana House Bill 393 would allow parents of a student with a disability the chance to have access to an Education Savings Account or “ESA.” ESA’s are extremely popular with parents and are common in many states around the nation. Polling has shown overwhelming support across party lines and demographics. The ESA in HB 393 allows parents who choose to sign up to access roughly $6,800 that can be used on education therapies, private school tuition and fees, textbooks, curriculum, tutoring, transportation, and other education-related expenses. It can be a tremendously helpful tool for parents who might not have the resources to help their child. Speech and occupational therapies alone can cost a family thousands of dollars each year – an expense many families cannot afford. But the Montana Quality Education Coalition, made up of public school superintendents and union leaders from across the state filed a cruel lawsuit to stop the program. They say allowing special needs kids to receive any ESA benefit will unfairly harm their work. They incorrectly label the program a “voucher” and accuse parents who want further options of “privatizing education.” This same organization also sued to prevent implementation of Montana’s new public charter schools. Their harsh assessment is that the only schooling option should be their system, regardless of whether it works for the student. The group wanted the court to stop implantation immediately, even though few students have even signed up. The court, however, said that wasn’t going to happen, noting that the long term “harm” to the group’s advocacy power doesn’t meet the threshold to immediately stop implementation. The case will continue now, but Montana families who need more education options can breathe a temporary sigh of relief.

Policymakers at the state and federal levels should be doing whatever they can to expand and promote the use of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). An HSA is an account that allows a user to set aside money on a pre-tax basis to pay for health care expenses. Often, employers will match an employee’s contributions to an HSA. And, depending on how the HSA is setup, employees can earn interest in the account. An HSA puts the power of everyday health care spending in the hands of the consumer. Instead of forcing citizens to abide by all the rules of their health insurance company, they can shop around and, in doing so, help put pressure on the market to lower costs and improve care. Current HSA account balances exceed $100 billion nationally roughly $3,000 per account, on average. Unfortunately, 90% of Americans lack access to health savings accounts. Why? Because, under current law, it is illegal to have an HSA unless you have a high-deductible health care plan. This means even those who are uninsured cannot legally save for their health care in an HSA. Most federal health care programs like Medicaid and Medicare don’t meet the definition of high deductible, so Americans are shut out there as well. This makes no sense. Lawmakers can change the system by either decoupling HSA’s from insurance altogether, or it could allow most insurance plans to be HSA-qualified. One proposal recently introduced would even allow citizens to accept federal contributions to an HSA in lieu of reduced cost-sharing of insurance purchased through an exchange. For example, if a citizen buys health coverage through an exchange, cost-sharing by the federal government reduces the cost. Citizens would be able to choose whether they wanted a lower insurance premium, or a higher premium with the option to have an HSA partially funded by the government. Researchers with the Paragon Health Institute contend doing so would result in approximately $1,400 a year being placed in a citizen’s new health care savings account. For a younger adult who has few health care costs, the account could grow and be worth as much as $119,000 in 30 years.

Policymakers have various tax levers available, but one they should avoid pulling is a tax specifically on sugary beverages. These taxes often come with promises to decrease sugar consumption and raise revenue for popular programs. These goals are counterintuitive. If soda taxes were successful in deterring consumption, the revenue stream for popular programs would decrease. Research has been mixed. In Seattle, where in 2018 city leaders adopted a 1.75 cents per fluid ounce sugary beverage tax, there was little evidence of impact. In fact, research conducted by the city showed that, while consumption of beverages did decline, it declined more in neighboring cities that did not have a sugary beverage tax. Peer-reviewed research on the Seattle beverage tax also showed a significant increase in beer purchases following implementation, suggesting alternative purchases were not necessarily healthy. Policymakers are essentially using taxes to play sugar whack-a-mole. Additional data on Philadelphia’s sugary drink tax shows a reduction in sugar drink consumption, but an increase in the purchases of sugary foods. Researchers simply concluded, “the policy can be undermined by consumers changing their sources of sugar.” Sugary drink taxes are very regressive. Lower income adults consume 40% more sugary drinks each day than higher income adults. Lower income children consumer 2.5 times as many sugary drinks than higher income children. This means low income households are hit much harder by any sugary beverage tax.

Note: This article was originally published by Washington Policy Center. It is reposted with permission. “Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.” – George Santayana Advocates of aggressive action to reduce CO2 emissions argue that it is necessary to protect the environment and wildlife from the impacts of climate change. Ironically, there are several clean energy projects that may end up doing more harm to wildlife than the climate impacts they are designed to avoid. In California, centuries-old Joshua trees are being destroyed in favor of a 2,300-acre solar energy project. A similar situation is playing out in Washington state as Governor Jay Inslee is pushing to build the massive Horse Heaven wind farm in Eastern Washington that would harm the habitat of the endangered ferruginous hawk. In a letter to the state’s energy sighting board known as EFSEC, the governor made it clear that building more wind power trumps virtually all other considerations. “Washington faces the stark reality that without a rapid buildout of new clean energy generation and transmission, the dependability of our electricity grid is at risk,” he wrote. He went on to cite RCW 80.50.010, writing that, “It is the policy of the state of Washington to reduce dependence on fossil fuels by recognizing the need for clean energy…” That single focus on building more wind turbines caused the governor to set aside concerns about environmental harm, community complaints, and concerns raised by the Yakama Tribe. While the governor’s letter makes minimal efforts to acknowledge these problems, ultimately, they are dismissed. The governor’s decision to downplay the risks from the wind turbines to the ferruginous hawk stands in contrast to his approach to dealing with Washington’s growing grey wolf population and the Snake River dams. The governor’s letter is a good example of how subjective political judgments, not science or objective assessment, drive so much of our environmental policy. It also demonstrates how the state’s needlessly aggressive and restrictive energy policy is imposing big economic and environmental tradeoffs on communities. Turbines kill hawks (literally and figuratively) The Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) is tasked with permitting new energy projects. The council “must take into account protection of environmental quality, the safety of energy facilities, and concern for energy availability.” On April 29, the council released its assessment of the proposed Horse Heaven wind and solar energy project across an area of more than 72,000 acres. In their decision, EFSEC councilmembers added restrictions on construction of wind turbines near existing and historical nesting sites of the ferruginous hawk, an endangered species in Washington state. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife lists the hawk as a “Species of Greatest Conservation Need” in Washington. Noting that the population is declining, EFSEC council members wrote, “we find that Project would threaten the persistence of the ferruginous hawk not only in the Project area but also in Washington State.” As a result, the size of the project was significantly reduced. In response, Governor Inslee directed EFSEC’s members to reconsider their decision, specifically objecting to the restrictions related to the hawk and highlighting the need for new energy generation. In his letter, the governor wrote, “the region will need to build roughly twenty additional clean energy projects of this magnitude to meet Washington's projected electricity load growth by 2035.” For context, the entire 72,000-acre project would generate about as much electricity in a year as the Ice Harbor Dam, one of the four dams on the Lower Snake River and one-third the energy generated by the nuclear-powered Columbia Generating Station in the Tri-Cities. Unlike wind turbines, dams and nuclear plants generate a predictable supply of electricity. The governor noted that, “significant impacts may be accepted as part of this vital Project where they cannot be reasonably mitigated” (emphasis added). The key word in that sentence is “vital.” In the governor’s judgement declaring something to be “vital” means that other concerns, like impacts to endangered species, become less important. That is a purely subjective judgement. Indeed, the EFSEC members made the opposite judgment. In dismissing the risk to the ferruginous hawk, Governor Inslee parroted the argument of the company looking to build the turbines, writing, “The sad reality is that the ferruginous hawk population has declined to minimal levels at the site over many years, due to various factors including agricultural and residential land use decisions that pre-date this Project.” His argument is that since the hawk’s population has already declined to low levels, additional disturbance, even if it permanently precluded hawks from returning to the area, is acceptable. When the governor was given a choice between killing wind turbines or hawks, the hawks lost. Why do hawks matter less than salmon or wolves? That choice – justifying harm to a threatened species to support an economic goal – is at odds with the governor’s judgement in other cases. Notably, the governor supports destroying the four Lower Snake River dams to help salmon recover. Governor Inslee minimized concerns about the ferruginous hawk because the state will need much more CO2-free energy to meet future demand. That argument doesn’t seem to apply to the Snake River dams even though, unlike the hawk, Snake River Spring Chinook populations aren’t declining. We could also point to the letter Governor Inslee sent to the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife earlier this year, telling them to create new rules to prevent wolves from being killed when they threaten livestock. Responding to the request of environmental activists, the governor wrote that existing rules used by WDFW could “be used to unjustly kill an increasing number of Washington’s wolves.” Again, as opposed to declines in the ferruginous hawk population, Washington’s wolf population has increased significantly and may be delisted in the near future. The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Nation already consider wolves recovered on their land. The governor wants tougher restrictions on energy production in the case of salmon – where populations are not declining – and ranchers in the case of wolves – where populations have increased significantly. For the ferruginous hawk – where populations are declining such that it is a Species of Greatest Conservation Need – wind power trumps wildlife. The governor’s letter to EFSEC offers alternatives to mitigate the impact to the hawk, but he is clear that he is willing to allow “significant impacts” to build the wind project. The decision wasn’t based on “science.” The governor’s choice comes down to what he, personally, considers important. In the case of building more wind turbines to achieve the climate targets at the center of his political image, he is redoubling his effort. In the case of wolves and salmon, he is willing to risk energy reliability and economic wellbeing to avoid risks to species that are doing better than the hawk. How do we manage environmental tradeoffs? Ultimately, there is no right answer. There are arguments for preserving hawk habitat as well as generating more electricity. I can argue that we should preference the private property rights of the landowners who benefit from building wind turbines. I can also argue that local communities who have to deal with impacts caused by the wind turbines, should have a say in mitigating potential harms. But the process of determine the best answer should not be haphazard and based simply on a subjective assessment of political goals. In the case of the Horse Heaven wind farm, the governor’s judgement is driven in part by his own needlessly restrictive energy policy that essentially makes wind the only new source of allowable energy. With no reasonable alternatives, it becomes virtually impossible to reject a wind farm without admitting the state’s energy policy is unattainable. Given that policy and political environment and the need more much more energy in the future, the controversy over the Horse Heaven wind is just the first of many energy controversies to come. Todd Myers is the Vice-President for Research at the Washington Policy Center, a non-profit think tank that promotes public policy based on free-market solutions. He can be reached at tmyers@washingtonpolicy.org.

19 States have banded together in a lawsuit against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) green energy transition measurements. FERC Order 1920 issued on May 13, gives unprecedented oversight of the electrical grid to FERC. These states believe that this compromises their ability to determine the correct energy sources for their unique region’s grids. The measure in question is FERC Order number 1920 which states: “There is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the existing regional transmission planning and cost allocation processes are unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory or preferential because the Commission’s existing transmission planning and cost allocation requirements do not require transmission providers to: (1) perform a sufficiently long-term assessment of transmission needs that identifies Long-Term Transmission Needs; (2) adequately account on a forward looking basis for known determinants of Long-Term Transmission Needs; and (3) consider the broader set of benefits of regional transmission facilities planned to meet those Long-Term Transmission Needs.” This order is set to be effective on August 12, 2024. In the words of FERC’s Chairman Willi Philips: “The new rule is so historic that it was designated Order No. 1920, invoking the year that the original Federal Power Act (FPA) first became law and FERC’s predecessor, the Federal Power Commission, was formed." FERC argues that this is the first-time regional transmission policy has been addressed from the federal level in more than a decade, and the first time it has ever addressed the need for long term transmission planning. The coalition involved against this order includes Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Utah. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton who is leading the charge stated: “Biden’s attempt to seize unprecedented control over energy production and distribution is a recipe for disaster." In its brief, the states argue: “The rule is not supported by reasoned decision-making or explanation and runs counter to the evidence . . . FERC issued the rule attempting to do indirectly what it cannot do directly: usurp the States’ exclusive authority over generation choices by adopting planning rules designed to benefit remote renewable generation and renewable developers, and shift billions or trillions of dollars in transmission costs from those developers onto electric consumers." In FERC’s commentary on the order, it makes this comment about the dissent’s opinion: "The requirement to consider state public policies is part of the much broader requirement to comprehensively consider all significant factors shaping future transmission needs, where other factors, including the fundamental economic and reliability drivers, play a much bigger role. That Commissioner Christie is focused overwhelmingly on the state public policies with which he disagrees does not mean that the same is true of Long-Term Regional Transmission facilities." This statement shows that FERC does not consider state’s rights to be a heavy matter when balancing multiple factors. From the outside, many states see this as a power grab and a way for the federal government to transition to green energy without going through the proper avenues of each state’s government process. The lawsuit states that this policy “reflects a view of agency action beyond what Congress (or the Constitution) has authorized and violates numerous other foundational principles of administrative law." The lone dissenter, Commissioner Mark Christie, did propose a form of this policy with more state empowerment, but it was voted down. ‌ Christie commented in his 77-page dissent: “A pretext to enact, through administrative action, a sweeping legislative and policy agenda that Congress never passed. The final rule claims statutory authority the Commission does not have to issue an absurdly complex bureaucratic blizzard of mandates and micromanagement to be imposed on every transmission provider in the United States for the transparent goal of spending trillions of consumers’ dollars on transmission not to serve consumers in accordance with the FPA, but instead to serve political, corporate, and other special-interest agendas that were never enacted into law." Christie went on to say, “the Final Rule is a ‘shell game’ that requires transmission planners to consider ‘pre-cooked’ inputs that will necessarily result in the selection of green energy projects." Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D‑NY) did give a hint to that in his most recent statement about transitioning to green energy: “We always had FERC in the back of our minds because it could be done without congressional Republican approval." In the past, members of both parties have tried to use FERC as their vehicle to drive their policy agendas. It should be noted that even former President Trump’s attempt to provide cost recovery for plants with onsite fuel supplies was rejected. FERC wrote that neither the DOE proposal nor comments in the record showed that existing market rules are unjust and unreasonable in that case. This example brings up one of the biggest problems, which is the vague requirements of providing a new regional planning transition policy, “unjust and unreasonable” can be made to fit any situation in which a party is trying to cram down its preferred policy. The FERC needs to continue its status as nonpartisan and independent. The other side to this argument is that this extra oversight and planning will result in lower costs for the consumer. But that will not prove to be the case. This will add another level of bureaucracy to the energy sector, causing it to be harder for energy companies to pivot quickly in emergency situations. These new energy sources being pushed through like wind and solar will not hold up in the cases of worsening weather, but energy companies will now be forced to act not based in the best interest of its consumers but based off the federal government’s demands. FERC needs to limit its scope, and truly act as a nonpartisan agency. The elevation of the federal government over the states involving energy management is both unconstitutional as well as impractical. Each state has its own unique needs and challenges, and only local stakeholders can identify those in a timely manner. If a transition to different energy sources happens, it should be driven by the free market and choice, not government compulsion.

John Adams said that “liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people.” On this 248th celebration of America’s birthday, it’s important to ask the question: are we living up to the ideals of the founders? Do we have a general knowledge of our own history? Sadly, the answer is increasingly no. Studies show that many Americans fail to answer even the most basic questions about our history. Who is the Vice President? What year did we declare our independence? What are the three branches of government? Results from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) show startling declines in even the most basic U.S. history knowledge. Today we celebrate - even if some have little knowledge of the reason why. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson - close allies, who became bitter rivals and then friends - admonished citizens to remember the sacrifice of our founding and celebrate a momentous day in the history of the world. “For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights and an undiminished devotion to them,” Jefferson wrote. Adams said Independence Day “ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward furthermore.” It is true that our Declaration and the Constitution that followed had flaws. Still, the documents we were given and the country we inherited are the most remarkable in the history of the world. If you want to truly understand the founding, read David McCullough’s John Adams - which later became an award winning HBO series. Each of these men knew that, by voting yes, they may have been signing the death warrants for not only them but also their families. They did it anyway. Are we worthy of their sacrifice? Adams said “Posterity! You will never know how much the present Generation costs to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make good use of it.”

Supporters of an Idaho ballot measure that would open primaries and adopt ranked choice voting likely delivered enough signatures to the state Tuesday to place the measure on the November general election. Activists stood on the steps of the state capitol in Boise to announce they were submitting more than 97,000 signatures. Idaho state law requires valid signatures from six percent of voters in half of the state's 35 legislative districts. In addition to opening the primaries to all voters (instead of just parties choosing their candidates), the measure would implement ranked choice voting (RCV) in the general election. The convoluted and controversial system would require voters to rank candidates in their order of preference. Votes would be counted in rounds, as the candidate with the fewest votes would be eliminated, and those votes would be transferred to the second choice. If voters only chose one candidate, their vote could be tossed out. Coupling the issues (open primaries and RCV) together in the same measure presents major headaches for supporters and voters. First, while open primaries may be popular, RCV is decidedly not. It is telling that almost all of the signage and language regarding the measure now mentions little of RCV. Second, there are serious constitutional concerns. The measure likely violates the state’s single subject rule. Article 3, Section 16 of the Idaho State Constitution makes it clear that “every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith.” Several years ago, lawmakers amended state law to require ballot initiatives only address a single subject. The reasoning here is simple: to ensure that it is easy to interpret voter intent. If a measure has multiple subjects, it is difficult to know what voters may have been approving or rejecting. There is currently no standing to review the open primaries/ranked choice voting measure because it has not yet qualified. If it does, the Idaho Supreme Court will likely be asked to review. A single subject rule is not unusual. Of the states that allow for a citizen-initiated ballot measure, more than half have single-subject rules. Montana’s Supreme Court recently cited single subject requirements to strike down an initiative that would have capped yearly property tax increases but would have also capped the taxable value. South Dakota’s Supreme Court did the same, ruling a voter-approved initiative legalizing marijuana was unconstitutional because recreational marijuana, medical marijuana and hemp were three different subjects. Single subject rules also exist to clarify actions of legislatures. In fact, 43 state constitutions contain single subject requirements for legislation. Mississippi and Arkansas apply the requirement to just spending bills. One place you won’t find single subject requirements is the United States Constitution and the U.S. Congress. As a result, mega omnibus bills often called “Christmas trees” are commonplace – a frustration for many Americans and an affront to the notion of transparent government. Supporters of the election ballot initiative say it will give Idahoans “more freedom and better leadership.” Whether that is true is ultimately up to voters to decide. But with two distinct subjects, it will be more difficult to try to determine and implement their real intent. As it currently stands, are voters supporting open primaries or ranked choice voting with the ballot measure? They are two very different things. By linking the subjects together, voters are being denied the opportunity to support one or the other - something single subject restrictions are designed to prevent. It is a near certainty the ballot measure will be challenged in court. Both Washington's (Steve Hobbs) and Montana's (Christi Jacobsen) Secretary of State have spoken out against ranked choice voting, with Hobbs saying "ranked-choice voting adds a layer of complexity to voting that threatens to disenfranchise people who aren’t experts at the process." MSPC has produced this video to detail the challenges surrounding ranked choice voting:

The challenging waters of Idaho's irrigation needs became even more turbulent in recent weeks, with water users working through disagreements over the proper management of this precious resource. Mountain States Policy Center wrote about the Eastern Idaho curtailment issues last year here and here. But even after this past year was filled with many discussions on the issue, the problem was even worse for the 2024 growing season. Idaho water users have been working to resolve their differences over the ability to use water for years, and this spring some groundwater users were restricted by the Idaho Department of Water Resources in the southern part of the state. This action could have led to 330,000 acres of farmland being curtailed, unless a mitigation agreement could be reached. All sides shared concerns over the potential loss of cropland and the potential economic damage to farmers across Southern Idaho, while at the same time honoring prior agreements to conserve water and ensure that the Snake River Aquifer remains a stable and plentiful source of water. The waters have calmed for now, when surface water users and ground water users came to an agreement this week allowing water to be turned back on for the season. However, the agreement has only delayed a resolution. To ensure calm and plentiful waters remain, it is going to take a long to-do list in the coming months. At a press conference to end curtailment and announce the agreement, Governor Little said: “Just like we’ve done over and over, Idahoans came together, resolved our differences and found a path forward to protect farmers and our water supply for the year. However, we recognize we still have a lot of hard work to do. We will be OK for this year, but we all agree we need a better plan in the years ahead to protect our farmers and ensure Idaho maintains our water sovereignty. We remain committed to working with all water users in Idaho to ensure we have a sustainable supply of water for this generation and future generations.” The announcement and new Executive Order means that ground water users and surface water users will function on the agreement and objectives reached in 2016, not the new model that requires curtailment. If the ground water users increase water conservation efforts by 240,000 acre feet and divert 50,000 acre feet of storage water to surface water users, they will avoid curtailment for this year. There are six objectives the agreement prioritized: Improve understanding of the aquifer. Convene the interim Natural Resources Committee prior to the 2025 legislative session to find opportunities to improve water infrastructure. Prioritize funding for projects that have net benefits to the aquifer. Governor will bring stakeholders together to propose solutions to long-term water sustainability. Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer Groundwater Management Plan Advisory Council will continue to meet to create a Groundwater Management Plan submitted by September 1, 2024. Groundwater users will meet to establish an improved mitigation plan as as possible, no later than October 1, 2024. The two sides of this issue know some changes still need to be made. Kent Fletcher, the attorney for the Surface Water Coalition said: “Despite all efforts since the mitigation plan was signed in 2015, the ESPA continues to experience declining aquifer levels, spring discharges and reach gains into the Snake River, which supply the SWC senior water rights. The SWC looks forward to negotiating amendments to the mitigation plan that address concerns of the groundwater districts while improving management, enforcement of groundwater pumping and recovery of senior surface water supplies. The SWC seeks a mitigation plan that incentivizes compliance, is enforceable and ultimately avoids findings of injury to senior surface water rights every year.” Idaho Ground Water Association (IGWA) Chairwoman Stephanie Mickelsen said: “The way the Idaho Department of Water Resources currently goes about managing the ESPA is not working. Without meaningful change to how water resources are managed, we will find ourselves right back in this same position and all of Idaho will end up paying the price.” The Executive Order signed on June 26 has high hopes that Idaho water users can continue to come together to reach a workable agreement for next year. For the sake of all involved, let’s hope that these now calmed turbulent waters can remain that way.

Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) - the region's top free market think tank - is proud to announce it has been nominated for a major national award for its work to ban home equity theft in Idaho. MSPC is one of just three finalists for the State Policy Network's Bob Williams Award for Outstanding Policy Achievement - the Biggest Win for Freedom. Along with four other state based think tanks that tackled the issue in their states (the Platte Institute, the Cascade Policy Institute, Maine Policy Institute and the Pioneer Institute), MSPC helped educate Idaho lawmakers on home equity theft - aiming to protect property rights for some of our most vulnerable residents. Our work was built on Pacific Legal Foundation’s 2023 Supreme Court victory Tyler v. Hennepin County. That case set a national precedent clarifying that government cannot take more than it’s owed when collecting delinquent property taxes. The equity in property is just as protected as property itself. But even unanimous Supreme Court victories don’t become state law by themselves. MSPC's Madilynne Clark led our research and outreach on the issue, producing a major study, educating lawmakers, and even testifying before legislative committees at the request of members. "Madi earned the respect of lawmakers who were eager to learn about the issue, and prevent injustice," said MSPC President Chris Cargill. A ban on home equity theft was unanimously approved by the Idaho legislature and signed into law earlier this year. The award winner will be announced in August, but the real winners are those citizens who won't face the possibility that this could ever happen to them. You can learn more about the other finalists for this award, as well as the good work of other state-based think tanks here. If you are attending the State Policy Network Annual Meeting in Phoenix, we would appreciate your vote!

The U.S. Supreme Court essentially punted this morning on a closely watched case concerning state regulations on social media platforms. Though the justices signaled serious concerns about possible violations of the First Amendment, they referred the controversy back to lower courts to answer questions further before the high court issues a final decision. As reported by the Wall Street Journal: “The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a ruling on the validity of laws in Texas and Florida that sought to regulate how tech platforms moderate content, sending legal challenges backed by social-media companies back to lower courts for more arguments . . . The Supreme Court, however, stepped in with a brief written order that kept the Texas law on hold while the litigation continued.” Last year Mountain States Policy Center joined an amicus in these cases encouraging the justices to uphold important First Amendment protections. The amicus that MSPC joined warned: “Though well-intentioned, the state laws here flout these principles and will turn the internet into what has aptly been called a ‘splinternet’ of 50 state speech codes—balkanizing the country, confusing users, overburdening websites, and impoverishing public debate. Amici file this brief to explain why such state laws are both unconstitutional and unneeded.” There were several concurring opinions but no dissents in today’s ruling. Writing for the majority Justice Kagan said: “The problem for this Court is that it cannot undertake the needed inquiries. ‘[W]e are a court of review, not of first view.’ Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005). Neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit performed the facial analysis in the way just described. And even were we to ignore the value of other courts going first, we could not proceed very far. The parties have not briefed the critical issues here, and the record is underdeveloped. So we vacate the decisions below and remand these cases. That will enable the lower courts to consider the scope of the laws’ applications, and weigh the unconstitutional as against the constitutional ones . . . In a better world, there would be fewer inequities in speech opportunities; and the government can take many steps to bring that world closer. But it cannot prohibit speech to improve or better balance the speech market. On the spectrum of dangers to free expression, there are few greater than allowing the government to change the speech of private actors in order to achieve its own conception of speech nirvana. That is why we have said in so many contexts that the government may not ‘restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others.’ . . . To give government that power is to enable it to control the expression of ideas, promoting those it favors and suppressing those it does not. And that is what the First Amendment protects all of us from. We accordingly vacate the judgments of the Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits and remand the cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” NetChoice said this about today’s ruling: “As our cases head back to the lower courts for consideration, the Supreme Court agreed with all our First Amendment arguments. Free speech is a cornerstone of our republic. As we prepare to celebrate the 248th anniversary of American independence this week, we are gratified to see the Supreme Court acknowledge the Constitution’s unparalleled protections for free speech, including the world’s most important communications tool, the internet.” Though we wish the issue had been resolved today, we agree with NetChoice that it is encouraging the U.S. Supreme Court instructed the lower courts to view these cases through the lens of strong First Amendment protections.

There are at least four U.S. Supreme Court justices willing to forcefully slam the door shut on efforts to impose wealth taxes. Unfortunately, you need five. Last October we wrote, “U.S. Supreme Court considers tax case of the century.” When the ruling in Moore v. United States came out on June 20, however, it brought to mind the scene from Peanuts of Lucy moving the ball before Charlie Brown could kick it. Rather than affirmatively answering whether income must be realized before it can be taxed, the majority opinion left that major legal question for another day. The SCOTUS blog described the ruling this way: “In its 24-page ruling, the majority did not resolve the question whether – as the Moores contended and the government disputed – the Constitution requires income to be realized before it can be taxed. Instead, Kavanaugh explained, the real ‘precise and narrow question’ before the justices was whether Congress can attribute income that an entity has realized but not distributed to its shareholders or partners and then tax that income. For Kavanaugh and the four justices who joined his opinion – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – the answer was clear from the Supreme Court’s ‘longstanding precedents’: yes, although they stressed that their ruling was a narrow one that ‘applies when Congress treats the entity as a pass-through.’” The majority opinion in Moore notes: “The Court’s holding is narrow and limited to entities treated as pass-throughs. Nothing in this opinion should be read to authorize any hypothetical congressional effort to tax both an entity and its shareholders or partners on the same undistributed income realized by the entity. Nor does this decision attempt to resolve the parties’ disagreement over whether realization is a constitutional requirement for an income tax.” Reading through the concurrent and dissenting opinions, there are at least four justices who are willing to rule that income must be realized before it can be taxed. As noted by the Tax Foundation: "It would take just one justice from the opinion of the court (which demurs on the question, for now) to create a majority against taxes on unrealized income, which could in turn invalidate certain tax ideas." One of the amicus in the case was filed by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF). NTUF said this about the Moore ruling: “This is a narrow decision focused on the one-time international tax that was challenged. But the Court makes clear it is not opening the door to a wealth tax, which would still face constitutional problems as a tax on property.” The failure to resolve this debate now left Justice Thomas particularly frustrated in his dissent: “Even as the majority admits to reasoning from fiscal consequences, it apparently believes that a generous application of dicta will guard against unconstitutional taxes in the future. The majority’s analysis begins with a list of nonexistent taxes that the Court does not today bless, including a wealth tax. And, it concludes by offering a narrow interpretation of its own holding, hinting at limiting doctrines, prejudging future taxes, cataloguing the Government’s concessions, and reserving other questions ‘for another day.’ Sensing that upholding the MRT cedes additional ground to Congress, the majority arms itself with dicta to tell Congress ‘no’ in the future. But, if the Court is not willing to uphold limitations on the taxing power in expensive cases, cheap dicta will make no difference. The Court today upholds the MRT, but not because it endorses the Ninth Circuit’s erroneous view that ‘realization of income is not a constitutional requirement.’ The majority acknowledges that the Sixteenth Amendment draws a distinction between income and its source. And, it does not dispute that realization is what distinguishes income from property. Those premises are sufficient to establish that realization is a constitutional requirement. Sixteenth Amendment ‘income’ is only realized income. We should not have hesitated to say so in this case.” Advocates for taxing unrealized income may look at the ruling in Moore and think, “So you're telling me there's a chance?” With four justices already a firm no, that’s a chance not worth taking.

After forty years in the agency-policymaking wilderness, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled its clear intention to restore the balance of power to the judiciary when agency disputes with citizens are concerned. In a landmark 6-3 ruling, the majority agreed to overturn the Chevron Doctrine—a four-decade mistake that tied the hands of the judiciary to impartially adjudicate lawsuits between agencies and citizens. Like baseball’s “tie goes to the runner” rule, Chevron Deference meant that “policymaking gaps go to agency,” which often left citizens and businesses at the mercy of unchecked agency policymaking. In the same week, the Court issued a separate ruling aimed at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s practice of adjudicating important cases with the agency’s own hand-picked, in-house judges. The Court ruled that the practice violates a citizen’s right to a trial by jury protected under the Seventh Amendment. Both rulings are huge wins for private citizens against federal agency overreach. The removal of Chevron means the judiciary’s thumb will no longer be planted on the agency’s side of the justice scales when a law is ambiguous. “Today, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss. In doing so, the Court returns judges to interpretive rules that have guided federal courts since the Nation’s founding,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. Years of Chevron deference allowed unbridled growth of agency power. In the case that sealed its fate, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determined that an agent must be present on every commercial fishing expedition to enforce compliance with all federal regulations. If the full-time presence of a federal agent wasn’t oppressive enough, NMFS required the business to pay for the regulator’s time. This would be comparable to the IRS sending taxpayers a bill for an agent’s time after an audit, whether or not they had done anything wrong. Loper’s practical effect is that Congress will need to get more specific and transparent about the laws it writes, rather than relying upon unelected, unaccountable agencies to fill in the policymaking gaps. At least two mountain state governors applauded the ruling. “The court has essentially removed the fox from the hen house. This decision ensures that agencies can no longer unilaterally expand their authority beyond the letter of the law,” Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon wrote. Equally relieved, Montana Governor Greg Gianforte celebrated, “Today, the Supreme Court dealt a huge blow to career bureaucrats in Washington who try to micromanage our way of life. This decision helps restore constitutional governance by ensuring policies are decided by elected representatives instead of agencies.” The Court’s SEC ruling will stop the appalling practice of an agency acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury. Congress cannot delegate adjudication to an agency at the expense of private citizens unless it is enforcing “public rights” that belong to the government. “A defendant facing a fraud suit has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral adjudicator,” Justice Roberts wrote. “The right to trial by jury is ‘of such importance and occupies so firm a place in our history and jurisprudence that any seeming curtailment of the right’ has always been and ‘should be scrutinized with the utmost care.’” Defined roles and separation of powers are part of what protects citizens from government overreach. Policymaking is Congress’s job. Adjudication is the judiciary’s job. Enforcement is an agency’s job. Our institutions work best when everyone stays in their lane.

Note: This is a joint Mountain States Policy Center op-ed with Invest in Education Coalition The advancement of education choice options for children in Idaho has hit one frustrating roadblock after another. But that hasn't been the case in most other states. Thirty-three states now have some type of education choice law on the books to empower families with limited to middle-class incomes to access private and religious school options for their children. The U.S. Congress may also step up to expand education choice to children in every state. Twelve of these 33 states, including neighboring Utah, are implementing near “universal” education choice where almost every family with school-age children will have the option of choosing the best, most suitable school available. Idaho is not one of these 33 states, which means Idaho families have thus far been left out of the education choice revolution sweeping America, which accelerated after the COVID-19 pandemic struck in 2020, and continues apace. Idaho’s absence of education choice opportunities is not for lack of interest. During the recently concluded state legislative session in Boise, a bill to provide individual tax credits to families to offset private school tuition and other education expenses was voted down in a House committee. Last year, another bill that would have provided education savings accounts to families to cover education expenses was defeated on the Senate floor. The U.S. Congress looks ready to expand education freedom for students in grades kindergarten through 12, which would especially help families in states like Idaho that continue to lack this opportunity. Congressman Adrian Smith of Nebraska, who represents a mostly rural district, and Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, have proposed the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA) that would provide credits against federal individual and corporate income taxes for donations to scholarship granting organizations. Scholarships would be awarded to as many as two million students nationwide, including more than 13,000 in Idaho, which can be used for private school tuition or educational services and materials akin to how a “529” plan works for higher education expenses. This latter option means that a child who remained in a district public school could still obtain a scholarship to address learning gaps. Importantly, the ECCA would not open the door to Washington dictating education policy in public or private schools. This legislation is carefully designed as a tax bill to spur private sector support for education. It contains no role for or spending by the U.S. Department of Education and would not impose mandates or directives on states, school districts or participating scholarship entities and schools. The recent defeats of education choice legislation in Idaho are not unusual in the history of expanding educational options. Education choice means a change to the status quo of education and brings new competition to public schools. That’s a positive for the most important stakeholders in education—children and their parents. For the education system, and multitude of adults that comprise that system, change typically is unwelcomed and resisted. If more of Idaho’s lawmakers in Boise and Washington focus on the right priorities—children and parents—then education choice will be understood as an obvious benefit, both in popularity with a cross-section of voters and in effectiveness for students. After several state legislators who are opponents education choice lost their primary elections last month, perhaps more lawmakers will get the message that parents mean business. More than perhaps any other issue, education choice has robust support among voters and over extended time periods. Last summer, RealClear Opinion Research polled 1,000 registered voters and found that school choice was supported by a lopsided margin of 71 to 13 percent, with Democrats (66%), Republicans (80%) and independents (69%) strongly in favor, along with Blacks (73%), Latinos (70%) and Asians (70%). Studies continue to show that education choice offers a range of benefits for elementary and secondary school students. The overwhelming number of studies on education choice programs, both recent and going back decades, confirm their impact is overwhelmingly positive regarding academic improvement – including for students who remain in the district public schools – and on taxpayer savings, integration, school safety, and parent satisfaction. Federal and state lawmakers should take notice—and take action—to bring education freedom to Idaho children by financially empowering their parents to determine the best education available for them. Otherwise, our families will lose out as more and more states leave us in the educational dustbin of history. Chris Cargill is President of the Mountain States Policy Center, which promotes free enterprise, individual liberty and limited government policies for Idaho, Montana, Washington and Wyoming. Peter Murphy is a Senior Advisor to the Invest in Education Coalition, which supports expanding K-12 education freedom for every child to access a great education.