OPINION: Dark money interests target Idaho’s treasury with 'school choice' scheme
Two interest groups that have drawn support from out-of-state dark-money interests are once again supporting a scheme to raid Idaho taxpayer funds to finance private, religious and home schooling. This time the drain of public money comes in the guise of a tax credit which would deplete public money that should go to shoring up Idaho’s under-financed public school system. The tax grab would violate Idaho’s strict constitutional prohibition against subsidizing religious education.
It is no secret that the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) has long set its sights on destroying Idaho’s public schools. Its recently-departed president made that clear time and time again. It appeared the objective was to open up the Idaho treasury to plunder by some of its private for-profit school financiers. IFF has done its utmost to deprive our schools of state funding and to discredit public schools and teachers with unfounded claims of misconduct. The Take Back Idaho group, which formed two years ago to combat extremism in Idaho, says it plans to make it a top priority this year to expose the malign influence of the IFF and its legislative supporters. It will place particular emphasis on defending the Idaho public school system. More power to them.
The other group supporting various schemes to force taxpayers to pay for private education, the Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC), appears to be a more subtle version of the IFF, but just as harmful to public schools. It advocates “school choice” programs, disregarding the fact that Idaho’s constitutional framers provided parents with the clear choice of sending their children to an adequately funded public school or to a privately financed school.
The new plan to use public money for private schooling violates the Idaho Constitution in at least two respects. The Constitution requires the Legislature “to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.”
There can be no doubt that this requirement has not been met in recent years, as evidenced by a 2005 decision of the Idaho Supreme Court, holding the state to be in violation of its responsibility to build and maintain public school buildings with state
funds. Legislators have largely ignored this responsibility, but Governor Brad Little has proposed a plan this year to begin meeting it. His plan to spend over $2 billion for that purpose in the next ten years is a good start and must take priority over any plan to divert public money from the public treasury to support private schools.
The tax grab violates the Constitution in another important respect. Idaho’s constitutional framers imposed a strong prohibition against using taxpayer money to support any form of religious education. They were dead set against allowing religious indoctrination with public money. That prohibition has been upheld in Idaho since statehood. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has provided a back door to allow public money to flow to religious schoolers. In two recent decisions, the Court ruled that if, and only if, a state establishes a program to provide taxpayer funds for private schooling, it cannot deny program funds to religious schoolers.
Idaho can and must observe both the state constitutional prohibition and the Supreme Court’s caution against allowing any program funds to be used for private schooling. We can easily do that by refusing to allow any taxpayer money to go to private schools
through any type of “school choice” scheme. If the proponents of adding an additional drain on the public treasury to finance private schooling want to accomplish that end, they should support a recent proposal to amend the Idaho Constitution to remove the religious education prohibition. Why not let the people decide if they want to take on this additional drain on the public treasury? Until Idahoans remove the constitutional prohibition, these “school choice” schemes should be held in abeyance.
From a policy standpoint, the various private school funding proposals have proven disastrous in other states, saddling taxpayers with budget-busting drains on public funds. The initial expenditure, $50 million in the case of the recently-announced Idaho tax credit plan, can steadily increase to astronomical proportions as has the school choice program in Arizona. Let common sense prevail — the legislature must immediately throttle this ill-advised proposal.
Labrador’s unseemly actions clearly demonstrate the reasons why lawyers are required to treat judges and the judicial system with truthfulness and respect.
Bruce Newcomb, Jerry L. Evans, A. J. Balukoff, Ben Ysursa, Tom Arkoosh and Geoff Thomas
Newcomb is a former House speaker. Evans is a former Idaho superintendent of public instruction. Balukoff is a Boise businessman. Ysursa is a former secretary of state. Arkoosh is a Boise attorney. Thomas is a former Madison School District superintendent.
