King Brad's Court

The special session was a choreographed performance from beginning to end

The extraordinary session of the 66th Idaho State Legislature met on Thursday, and the result was a foregone conclusion.

Governor Brad Little’s bill was introduced in the House first thing in the morning. Representative Judy Boyle’s alternative of a property tax holiday instead of more money for public education was not even given a hearing. House and Senate leadership made very clear that they were convening for one reason only: to confirm the bill drafted by the governor. In that, this event did not resemble a legislative session so much as a king calling his courtiers to the palace to ratify his edict.

Governor Little shows off the signed bill after the special session

It is ironic that this occurred just weeks before voters will decide whether or not to amend the state constitution to allow the legislature to call itself back into session. That proposed amendment was born out of the executive’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic, wherein Governor Little refused to call the legislature back to Boise to deal with the emergency, preferring to rule by fiat through the bureaucracy and allocate federal money with no legislative oversight.

Several legislators called attention to this blurring of the separation of powers during debate in the House. Representatives Heather Scott, Tammy Nichols, Ron Nate, and Judy Boyle all called out the fact that the governor was writing legislation and that the bill contained multiple subjects in clear violation of our state constitution. Representative Vito Barbieri said it well: “We do have the authority to fix this, but we don’t have the will to fix this.”

Representative John Vander Woude gave a scathing indictment of the leadership for going along with this farcical process - but then he voted for the bill anyway.

John Vander Woude: “I don’t like the process.”

Heather Scott made perhaps the most damning point about the whole affair when she pointed out that 24 of the governor’s cosponsors were either Democrats or lame duck Republicans, and that it was wrong for such a group to pass legislation in a special session that binds the next legislature. You see, the $410 million in education funding that was allocated by this bill was not appropriated - it will actually be up to the next legislature to decide what to do with the money. Governor Little called the legislature into session under the auspices of an emergency, but if that were the case, why not wait until the next legislative session to decide whether or not to allocate this money? To me, it looks as if the governor and legislative leadership felt pressured to do something rash and rushed right before an election. They get to have the headlines now about unprecedented and historic investment in education while worrying about the details later.

Heather Scott was treated awfully by her fellow representatives. At least three times during her speech she was interrupted, mostly by Democrats but also by Republican Majority Caucus Chair Megan Blanksma. Speaker Scott Bedke, rather than allowing her to speak, literally ridiculed her on the House floor. Scott seemed to take it in stride, and thankfully the speaker will be moving on to the Lt. Governor’s office next year and his rule of the House chamber will be at an end.

House leadership confers to figure out how to stop Heather Scott’s attempt to divide the question on the bill

Before the House and Senate debated the bill it was presented to a joint committee on taxation co-chaired by Senator Jim Rice and Representative Steven Harris. Not coincidentally, those men were also the sponsors of the bill. Harris pitched the bill before his own committee and then invited public comment. I noticed something interesting about the people who chose to comment on the bill: those in opposition were almost entirely regular people - moms, dads, citizens - as well as Fred Birnbaum of the Idaho Freedom Foundation. (Full disclosure, I am now a contributor to the IFF.) On the other hand, every proponent of the bill was someone who was part of the system that stands to benefit from this allocation of taxpayer dollars. Speaking in favor were outgoing State Superintendent Sherri Ybarra, Alex LaBeau, the president of IACI, Layne McInelly, the president of the Idaho Education Association, the leader of the West Ada teachers union, and several superintendents and teachers.

I won a small rhetorical victory when I pointed out that we hear the same language every year: historic and unprecedented investment in education. I said it reminded me of Groundhog Day. Sure enough, proponents of the bill who followed me read those exact words from their prepared speeches.

Opposition to the bill came down to the same fault lines that we often see in Idaho politics. Heather Scott, Tammy Nichols, Ron Nate, Greg Ferch, Karey Hanks, and the rest of the so-called liberty legislators made great points about the potential unconstitutionality of the bill, the separation of powers issues, and the fact that public education is not underfunded, no matter what the impotent Idaho Democrats claim. My own representative Gayann DeMordaunt explained that the numbers that really matter are that we are 6th in the nation in funding as a percentage of our total budget, that our 4th graders are 17th in math and 12th in reading, and so on. The Democrats and their friends in the GOP only ever talk about state funding and will never be satisfied no matter how much money taxpayers contribute to the system.

Gayann DeMordaunt: “We are policy makers who are not making policy.”

In the end, fifteen Republican representatives stood against the tide. I appreciate the hard work and bold stands of all these men and women.

Perhaps the most ironic moment during House debate was when lame duck Democrat John McCrostie stood up and indignantly said, “I take offense to the idea that anyone is kowtowing to the gentleman on the second floor!” (For some reason legislators have a tradition of never referring to the governor by name or title, so they came up with a euphemism.) I could not help but think of Queen Gertrude from Hamlet: the lady doth protest too much, methinks. Because kowtowing to the governor is exactly what McCrostie and his colleagues were doing. The entire affair was a choreographed show where the end was never in doubt. Public comment, House debate, Senate debate, parliamentary procedures - none of that mattered. The outcome was never going to change.

Christy Zito was the only Senator to vote against the bill.

My biggest takeaway from observing the process in person is that our elected representatives have far less power than we might think. Once the governor and legislative leadership decided to make this happen, there was not much that anyone could do. By putting three subjects - tax rebates, tax cuts, and education funding - into one bill, and getting lame duck Attorney General Lawrence Wasden to sign off on its constitutionality, the governor made sure that most naysayers would find themselves forced to vote in favor. I lost count of how many legislators said variations of I don’t like this but I’m going to vote yes anyway.

This political gamesmanship was clearly evident during the Senate debate when Republican Regina Bayer said, “I can’t not vote for tax relief,” and Democrat Melissa Wintrow said, “I can’t not vote for money for education.” This, of course, is exactly what happens all the time at the federal level, and is exactly what our state constitution meant to avoid.

Is this just how things are done in 21st century government? We have seen at the national level how Congress has delegated much of its own authority to the Executive Branch. Is this just the nature of politics now? Is there a path back to republican government in our state? I look forward to seeing what the 67th Legislature does to reclaim its own constitutional authority.

As for the bill itself, it is neither the end of the world, nor is it the great boon that proponents claimed. A flat tax is a nice idea in theory, though the threshold for income exemption has been set high enough that it is basically still a de facto progressive tax. Rebates are always welcome, though $300 per person will barely pay a month’s worth of gas for most people. It is unfortunate that taxpayers are now committed to another $410 million per year in education funding, with no guarantee of better results, though I am hopeful that the 67th Legislature will be careful with how it appropriates this money. The 3% escalation clause was stripped from the final version of the bill, which is nice, but I have to wonder if it was only added in the first place so that the sponsors could later remove it in a sign of compromise.

I understand the tactics involved with using this bill to neuter support for Reclaim Idaho’s tax hike initiative, though time will tell if it was the right move or not. If Proposition 1 passes, then the tax bracket issue will be curtailed, though taxpayers might still be on the hook for more than $300 million more for public schools.

Next year will also hopefully see new Attorney General Raúl Labrador doing his job to enforce the state constitution rather than letting the governor and legislative leadership do whatever they want.

All in all it was a fascinating experience to take in. I appreciated the opportunity to speak directly to the joint committee, I enjoyed watching the House and Senate debate the bill, and I had an opportunity to meet several fellow champions of liberty from throughout the state. This was just a taste of what the next session will bring, and I look forward to spending more time at the Capitol on your behalf next year.