Press "Enter" to skip to content

Unconstitutional here, too

April 28, 2025

A district judge in Utah issued a marvelous decision on April 18, finding Utah’s school voucher law to be unconstitutional. The 60-page decision was based on a variety of constitutional flaws that the Utah law shares with Idaho’s recently-enacted education tax credit law. The Utah law was enacted in 2023 with $42.5 million in state funds. State funding increased by $40 million in each of the next two years.

The Utah judge said the Utah Constitution gives “a direct command to the legislature to perform a single duty: establish and maintain the state’s education systems.’” The judge continued, “This clear expression of one duty–coupled with the absence of any general duty to provide for the education or intellectual improvement of Utahns — impliedly restricts the legislature from creating a publicly funded school or education program outside of the public school system.” In other words, Utah’s legislature is restricted from using public funds to support any form of private education.

Of interest is the fact that every member of the Idaho Legislature was sent a “Legislative Alert” on the first day of the 2025 legislative session, warning that any scheme to use taxpayer money for private education would be violative of the Idaho Constitution in a number of respects. The Alert was provided by The Committee to Protect and Preserve the Idaho Constitution, a group that participated in the successful lawsuit to overturn the restrictive initiative law enacted in 2021.

The Alert identified the same constitutional flaw focused upon by the Utah judge–that Idaho’s Constitution prohibits the funding of private and parochial education. That has been the law of Idaho ever since statehood in 1890.

The Alert spelled out several other constitutional infirmities that any voucher scheme would entail, including a deliberate transgression of Idaho’s strong prohibition against state support for religious education, discrimination against rural kids and Idaho religions that don’t operate parochial schools, lack of accountability for taxpayer money expended on private schooling, and diminution of state money necessary to support Idaho’s public school system, which has been chronically underfunded for decades.

The Utah judge’s decision mentioned a number of other infirmities in the Utah law--private schools often exclude students with special needs, or condition admission upon adherence to certain religious beliefs, or fail to provide “free” schooling as constitutionally required for taxpayer-supported education. These flaws are also inherent in House Bill 93, the subsidy bill approved by the Legislature this year.

The Idaho Legislature was clearly warned of the serious constitutional problems with HB 93, which will subsidize private and parochial education to the tune of $50 million in just the first year. Yet, because of massive funding from out-of-state groups that are seeking to weaken public schools across the nation, a majority of our legislators cast aside the Constitution and passed the subsidy bill. The Governor lacked the courage to veto the legislation, despite overwhelming public outcry against it.

Now, as with the similar travesty in Utah, concerned Idahoans will have to resort to the courts in order to protect the wishes of Idaho’s constitutional drafters. Please stay tuned.

 

Canaries in the chair

Canaries in the chair

April 27, 2025

In recent weeks, both of Oregon’s major political parties have changed leadership, under very different circumstances. Party leadership is only a small part of what makes the candidates under their banner successful, but it can be a coal mine canary of sorts, an indicator of underlying issues or strengths.

Over the last generation, Democrats have been faring gradually better in Oregon, and Republicans less well. What might we learn from a look at party leadership?

Start with the Democrats.

They have had three chairs in this decade. Carla “KC” Hanson, following five years leading the Multnomah County Democrats, was elected to two-year terms in 2019 and 2021. In 2023, she departed and the party’s vice chair, Rosa Colquitt, who also had worked for years in various positions in the party organization, was elected to the top spot.

This year, the state Democratic Central Committee met in Corvallis on March 16 and in a contested election replaced her with a new chair, Nathan Soltz, who at age 27 happens to be the youngest person to hold that job. He isn’t a newcomer to the party organization, however.

Soltz started work with the Democrats in Jackson County (one of Oregon’s most competitive) a decade ago, has worked in labor organizing and in the Legislature and was elected state party secretary two years ago.

There’s something to be said for injecting new blood in leadership positions from time to time (and Soltz may well provide some of that). But party organizations also can benefit from leaders who know how things work and understand how to get along with the various interests and groups that make up a large party, and manage to avoid conflict and controversy (other than when directed at the opposition).

Over to the Republicans.

Six people have led the Oregon Republican Party since 2020. These years opened with a period of some stability under Bill Currier, a mayor of Adair Village who had worked in various party positions for years before his election as chair in February 2015.

Six years later, shortly after releasing a statement (that many party leaders had backed) saying the Jan. 6, 2021 attempted insurrection in Washington, D.C. was a “false flag” operation (drawing complaints from within and outside the party), he lost a re-election bid to state Sen. Dallas Heard of Myrtle Creek.

After serving just over a year, Heard departed after complaining about conflict within the party, including “communist psychological warfare tactics.” (Others in the party said a flashpoint was debate over whether to open the party’s primary to non-Republicans.) The vice-chair, former legislator Herman Baertschiger, served as acting chair for about four months but then quit.

The job next went to Justin Hwang, a Gresham restaurant owner and former legislative candidate who had become vice-chair of the state party only three months before. He held the job until February of this year, providing some stability. During Hwang’s tenure, Oregon Republicans won in 2022 — and then lost in 2024 — a second congressional seat and legislative races that temporarily ended Democrats’ supermajority control in the House and Senate.

When the post came open for election early this year, a range of candidates contended, including former Senate candidate Jo Rae Perkins (the incumbent party secretary), Washington County Republican leader Gabriel Buehler, as well as a legislative candidate and a city councilor.

It was won from outside: A Columbia County pastor and insurance agent, Jerry Cummings. He prevailed after saying the party should focus less on hot-button issues to “reach beyond the Republican base and do a better job of presenting a message that makes us contenders around the state.”

But on April 8, the Oregon Journalism Project reported on court records from a long-running divorce and custody case and more recent lawsuits filed by creditors. The legal records included accusations from Cummings’ ex-wife that he engaged in sexual violence, allegations Cummings denied.

He soon resigned, and the job once again went to the party’s vice chair, Connie Whelchel of Deschutes County.

Considering that the party chair takes the lead in party organization, hiring, planning for campaigns and more, these rapid-fire turnovers, frequent controversies and overall lack of stability could have contributed to the party’s gradual weakening in the state during the last couple of decades.

That’s not all, of course. A great deal of political strength in the party is held by people and groups outside the Oregon voting mainstream.

But problems with stable leadership aren’t helping the party either. They may do well to consider why the job seems hard to fill with the kind of leaders they need.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

The constitutional crisis is here

April 26, 2025

The New York Times Sunday night:

The Trump administration on Sunday evening doubled down on its assertion that a federal judge cannot force it to bring back to the United States a Maryland man who was unlawfully deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador last month.

So this is the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a native of El Salvador who the Trump Justice Department admits was illegally deported last month - to El Salvador - and is now being held in a notorious prison in that central American country.

Federal Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland originally ordered the government to bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States, presumably so that the U.S. Justice Department could provide evidence that he deserved to be deported rather than merely abducted and then spirited away to a gulag.

That’s the way the system is supposed to work.

The government believes an immigrant, refugee, etc. has done something to warrant deportation so they go to court and make that case. The person in question has a right to “due process” to defend against the government’s charge. None of that happened in the Abrego Garcia case.

When the Trump Administration told Judge Xinis to effectively pound sand the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court then ruled unanimously last week that the government must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release, but cautioned Judge Xinis to act “with due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.”

This less than precise Supreme Court language has become a serious problem in the case, but only because of the incredible bad faith and the willful embrace of illegality by the Trump Administration.

After first essentially telling the judge they couldn’t do anything to get Abrego Garcia out of his Salvadoran hell hole, the administration’s lawyers now say the District court has no power to interfere with the president’s authority to make U.S. foreign policy. This seems to be a suggestion that somehow the president of the United States has determined that holding a man illegally in a foreign jail in a country with a brutal authoritarian leader is all in keeping with the responsible conduct of American foreign policy.

And, of course, an administration that confirms the timing and scope of air attacks on Middle East targets over an insecure Signal app that just happened to include the editor of The Atlantic conjures up some fresh BS about the judiciary interfering “with ongoing diplomatic discussions” that might result in the release of “classified documents.”

Furthermore, the administration argues - very convincing, right - that when the lawyers for Abrego Garcia’s request for more information concerning their client that request amounts to “micromanaging” U.S. foreign relations.

Good lord.

As Politico reported:

The administration continued Sunday to flout a Friday order from Xinis to deliver “daily updates” to the court describing its efforts to return Abrego Garcia to the United States. Sunday’s update from Evan Katz, the assistant director of removal operations for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said the administration had “no updates” for the judge. A day earlier, in a similarly threadbare update, the administration turned to Michael Kozak, the State Department’s senior bureau official in the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, who said Abrego Garcia was still alive in El Salvador’s CECOT prison.

The administration is also bucking demands from Abrego Garcia’s attorneys that officials detail the arrangement to ship hundreds of foreign nationals to a notorious prison in El Salvador. One of the Sunday filings insists those details are classified and could be subject to attorney-client and state secrets privileges.

Judge Xinis has a hearing on Tuesday. Wonder how she spent her weekend?

Like so much with the Trump Administration the basic and essential facts of this tremendously disturbing case tend to get lost in a reeking pile of bad faith, gaslighting and malicious intent. The lawyers piling up the bad faith, we should remind ourselves, are charged with representing the American people, but in this case they are actually micromanaging the dictatorial whims of our commander-in-chief and his many enablers.

To wit on the bad faith front:

  • The government admits Abrego Garcia was illegally deported.
  • The administration, it is reported, is paying El Salvador’s government $6 million to lock up around 300 individuals who have been deported in the last month or so. That means the administration has all the contacts, all the leverage, all the authority it needs to do what is simply the right thing and bring Abrego Garcia back.
  • Abrego García, who has three children and has lived in the U.S. for a decade, has never been arrested or accused of a crime and denies any affiliation with the MS-13 gang.
  • Yet, the administration - and it’s lawyers (you really wonder how they live with themselves) - concoct an entirely bad faith argument to do nothing.

The administration is clearly challenging the judicial branch to either back down or ratchet up. What comes next? Nobody knows.

I’m no constitutional lawyer, but I would suggest if we really are headed for a “constitutional crisis” let’s have it out over a man wrongly imprisoned in a foreign country by a government that admits it’s error and then gives the middle finger to what almost any fair minded person would say is a reasonable demand that helps ensure the rights of every individual under our Constitution and laws.

I also don’t know - and suspect the administration doesn’t either - if Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia is a really bad guy. May he is, may not. But that is not really the pressing issue.

What is clear - and this is a hugely important bedrock principle of our Constitution and the rule of law - is that the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the United State Constitution guarantee “due process” to “any person.”

Any person means any person. You, me, Abrego Garcia, Donald Trump, Martha Stewart - anyone. No exceptions. Period.

If it acts like a Constitutional crisis it really is one.

 

Out in the desert

Out in the desert

April 25, 2025

For all the change Idaho has seen in its larger metro areas there’s been little or none in most of the state, and you can find no more dramatic example of that than the great empty of the 35 or so desert miles between Boise and Mountain Home.

For the half-century I have driven I-84 between those communities, there’s been some change in the city of Mountain Home (sometimes up, sometimes down) and strong - sometimes explosive - growth on the other end at Boise. In between, except for some barely-settled windswept ranch country and the Boise Stage Stop center partway through, there’s been and still is only open landscape. At times through the years someone would come up with a big development idea, but nothing ever came of it.

That may be about to change.

The catalyst would be a planned new casino being developed by the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes (which are based at the Duck Valley Reservation on the Nevada-Idaho border) together with the Coeur d’Alene Tribe in northern Idaho, which has decades of experience successfully running their casino near Worley. The Sho-Pai bought 557 acres along the Ada-Canyon border, located not far from the Stage Stop, and about 40 acres of it would be used for the casino.

The tribe said, “The fully envisioned project may include: Luxury hotel, Gaming floor with the latest tribal gaming machines, Spa and fitness center, Fine dining restaurants, Food hall with multiple vendors, Event and entertainment center.” The project also would give them a link to off-reservation lands associated historically with the tribes.

Since less than a tenth of the land area presumably would be occupied by the casino, there would be space for other developments too. If this project - which still needs federal approval, a sign-off from the Idaho governor’s office and local government okays - does go forward, the large desert area east of Boise could be transformed.

There are obstacles: One of the big problems blocking major development in the area up to now has been water, which locally is in short supply;This is dry country. Services generally have been limited too.

And there could be another challenge. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of eastern Idaho (between Pocatello and Blackfoot) have proposed another casino project, a $300 million center located in Mountain Home. They have been working on economic development in the area ever since buying the land in 2020, and appear ready to make a major investment in it. Federal review of that project is already underway. (And the Sho-Bans too point to historical links to the land where they plan to build.)

While that one probably would lead to some economic expansion at Mountain Home, it probably wouldn’t change the territory between that city and Boise. Probably.

Some opposition to any of this also could materialize. Certainly not everyone in Idaho likes gaming or its expansion. And the Nevada operators at Jackpot and Elko are sure to militate against the developments; they currently get a lot of traffic from fast-growing southwest Idaho.

But it could happen. The Duck Valley Reservation has had a challenging history, and the Sho-Pais have a compelling and sympathetic story to tell. The Coeur d’Alenes, with their background in developing highly successful operations up north (and a history of developing smart leadership) could be an excellent partner for steering the project through difficult paths.

If it does happen, there’s a real chance the landscape and the use of it between Boise and Mountain Home could change significantly. Casino developments most often do not spin off large numbers of nearby start-ups, but the long-standing interest in developing housing and business operations out in the desert - and away from Boise’s high prices and regulation - could be irresistible for people who have given up on, or been interested in, earlier ideas for the area. A whole new community - even a city? - might be the result.

The announcement of this new casino project didn’t get the top-rank headlines around the region it should have. But in time to come, there’s a good chance it will.

 

Pulling together

Pulling together

April 24, 2025

I have been on many teams. I have coached a few. When we all pull together, we can beat bigger foes.

The Idaho legislature is not a good team right now. They seem to be pulling against each other. Maybe that’s how democracy is supposed to work. Maybe it’s up to us to see the goal, work toward it, and win, for all of us.

This last session Idaho’s medical training of doctors (MD’s…there are other “doctors”) came under deep scrutiny. Idaho is involved with the University of Washington and other states to train MD’s. It’s the WWAMI program.

There were bills introduced to sever ties with UW. The final bill that passed, HB 368a, said we would stay in the partnership, but only provisionally.

UW and WWAMI are widely recognized for quality.

While the Idaho legislature was working to dump Idaho’s affiliation, the statistic they pointed to most often, and the one you’ll see on the social media feeds is that Idaho sits at the bottom for doctors per capita. The legislature seems to be wringing their hands about being at the bottom of the fifty states and the District of Columbia.

But only when it comes to our UW affiliation.

At the same time they cut proposed funding for doctors who might come here to serve underserved areas (most of Idaho).

And cut Medicaid physician payments.

And they have put a gun to the head of doctors caring for complicated pregnant women.

If the Idaho legislature truly wants more doctors in the state, they need to pull together.

I agree with my conservative colleagues, there must be something more going on behind the scenes.

Here we come to the nut. And that’s what makes a team or sends you screaming for the exit.

What in fact do we want?

If we want more doctors in Idaho, we could do lots to make that happen. Given the sum of their actions, I argue the legislature is not interested in more doctors. There must be some other teapot tempest they are wringing their hands about.

I’m honestly just guessing here about what the Idaho legislature wants.

We should just forget about them.

The real question is what do we here in Idaho want?

Do we want more doctors?

Do we want good access to healthcare?

Do we want healthy communities?

Take those three questions and prioritize them. For they don’t all mean the same thing.

Massachusetts has the most doctors per capita, threefold more than Idaho.

But it takes an average of 70 days to get in to see a doctor in Boston. That’s the worst of any area surveyed.

Further, Massachusetts only ranks as the 12th “healthiest” state in another survey. Idaho, with our paltry supply of physicians ranks 16th.

The data says, having more doctors doesn’t necessarily give one better access, or make healthier communities.

So why is the Idaho legislature suddenly all twisted shorts about the number of doctors?

Back when I was a young WAMI (1985), Idaho had 12.1 doctors/ 10,000 residents. We were comparable with Mississippi and Alabama.

We were a poor state, like them. Many doctors don’t want to work where the patients are poor. Don’t forget, medicine in this country is a business, and doctors are businessmen.

Now we are a tiny bit richer. And we have 17 doctors/10,000 people. We’ve come up.

I’m sorry about all these numbers. There’s really just one big take away.

More doctors doesn’t mean healthier people or better access.

If you want healthier, you will have to look bigger. I would argue a guy very important to our health might be sitting in our local water treatment plant.

If you want more doctors, you will also have to look bigger.

I am glad the Idaho legislature has decided they need a broader perspective. I hope we are all served.

 

A legacy of lies

April 22, 2025

As an elderly American, I have never felt so fearful for our nation's future -  so angry about the barrage of attacks on the rights and guarantees of citizenship we've enjoyed all our lives - so alarmed about whether our Republic, as we know it, will survive the constant onslaught of lies and determined ignorance being heaped upon it.

We are living in times none of us have faced before.  The continual drumbeat of lies and distortions about nearly everything dealing with our system of governance has taken a toll on our way of life such as we've never known.

There are millions of Americans who believe their ignorance of "facts" is as good as your knowledge of the same facts.  Their determination to distort reality is literally dominating the lives of millions of people.  Our foundations of freedom and quality of life are facing an onslaught not seen since the Civil War.

Pick a subject - any subject - and you'll find we're split nearly evenly down the middle.  Elections end with no clear direction.  No definitive roadmap for the future.  Our two principal political parties seem ineffective.

The continued attacks on our system of elections by voices determined to guarantee they win, regardless of the expressed will of the majority, are weakening that basic freedom we've known for some 260 years.

Our President lies to us on a nearly daily basis.  Lies.  Makes up his own "truths" as he goes along.  In Congress, we have multiple caucuses splintering the body politic.  And, splintering truth at times.  Even members of the President's Cabinet feed us fallacies.  Truth - real truth based on real facts - is sometimes hard to find.

One of the current "whoppers" is that Trump is going to somehow take control of Greenland.  Buy it.  Trade for it.  Steal it.  No one knows what "powers" he feels he can use to control events.  But, it's a subject - a lie - he proffers regularly.

Another is his repeated claim he'll run for the Presidency again when his current term ends in 45 months despite the Constitution's clause limiting occupancy of that office to two terms.

The latest distortions of truth are the - on-again - off-again tariffs he's wielding like favors to various countries.  He got up really close to implementing them this week.  But - he backed off.  Said he'd give it a respite of "90 days."  Except for China.

Now, Marco Rubio seems like a guy who's got his act together.  But, as Secretary of State, he's got to be going bonkers with all the tariff talk.  Which nation is "in."  Which nation is "out."  Who's paying and who isn't.  Marco needs a score keeper.

A national political administration with so many lies in its activities is bound to fail eventually.  But, a lot of damage can occur before that ultimate end.  In this case, Trump's got nearly another four years.

I think many of us have clung to the hope that some sort of "White Knight" would suddenly appear to set things straight.  Not gonna happen.  We're stuck with the lies and distortions.

We'll survive.  But, there's gonna be an awful lot of pain in the process.  The question of the day is - "what or who is next?"

 

Suggestions for Crapo

April 21, 2025

Senator Mike Crapo said in an April 8 op-ed that “access to affordable housing is one of the most pressing issues” he encounters across Idaho. He has asked that Idahoans participate in a housing survey so he can develop policy solutions. The Senator is Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over issues that can profoundly affect housing in Idaho–trade, taxes, Medicaid and Social Security. He could actually have a tremendously positive effect on housing availability in the Gem State, merely by using his clout on this powerful committee, without needing a survey.

Donald Trump’s tariffs pose a serious threat to affordable housing by substantially increasing the costs of construction, remodeling and mortgage financing. Crapo could immediately join a bipartisan effort to take back the Constitutional power of Congress to regulate trade and tariffs. Congressional approval of Senate Joint Resolution 49 would terminate the tariffs, allowing Congress to target China with tariffs in specific industries where they would do some actual good. Crapo held an April 8 hearing on trade policy, but gave no indication he supported the Resolution or any other means of stopping Trump’s tariff chaos. Crapo needs to hear from voters on the necessity of legislative action to prevent harmful tariff-related escalation of housing costs.

As Chairman of the Finance Committee, Crapo should shoot down the false claims of Elon Musk that the Social Security system is a “ponzi scheme” riddled with fraud. Musk has failed to provide an iota of proof. Someone in a position of authority should tell him to provide proof or shut his trap. Social Security is a lifeline for elderly Americans who contributed to the system. Many live from check to check, depending on those payments to stay in their homes or apartments. As Musk has rifled through the private personal information of older Americans, he is causing the system to break down. If retired folk lose their housing as a result of his misconduct, there really will be a crisis.

The Republicans in Congress seem intent on savaging another program that provides housing to senior citizens of modest means. Medicaid is the primary payer source for 65% of the residents in Idaho’s certified nursing facilities. If Crapo and other GOP members of Congress cut $880 billion out of the Medicaid program to finance tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, it is not clear where those folks will find alternate housing.

Strangely, Crapo’s April 8 op-ed transitions from housing affordability to the issue of those tax cuts for the rich. Crapo is desperate to permanently extend the 2017 tax cut law that was massively skewed in favor of the top one percent. It has been reliably estimated that extension of the tax cuts without commensurate cuts in spending would add $4.5 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years and $37 trillion by 2054. The debt currently stands at $36 trillion. The richest 5% of Americans would receive 40% of the benefits of extension in the first year alone.

Senator Crapo has been the leading advocate for a smoke-and-mirrors budget policy that would essentially ignore the fact that spending would exceed revenue by more than $4 trillion over 10 years. Crapo is championing the “current policy baseline” that essentially overlooks the effect of adding unlimited years to the 2017 tax cuts. Prominent GOP budget experts say it would be a “recipe for disaster, a fiscal Pandora’s box.” The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has called the scheme “ a blueprint for miring us in even more debt.”

It may be that Crapo is merely looking out for the housing interests of the super rich, making sure that they have opulent housing options around the globe. For the ordinary American, the tax scheme does not offer much tax relief and it certainly does nothing to address the affordable housing issue.

Were Congress to adopt Crapo’s fiscally-irresponsible budget gimmick, borrowing cost would rise out of sight, endangering everyone’s access to reasonable mortgage rates for housing. With the burgeoning national debt and reluctance of investors to continue financing America’s massive and growing debt, lending rates for housing will likely rise above the reach of most Americans.

 

Too much communication

Too much communication

April 20, 2025

What do you do with legislation that cuts into the middle of how Oregonians live their lives, when most people want it but many are sharply opposed?

The short answer: Test it, when that’s possible. Launch a suggested solution, but keep specifics general enough that details emerge through trial and error. That can mean requiring local governments to act but encouraging them to become the laboratories where we learn what works well or not.

Today’s subject is cell phone use in schools, during school hours, for which Oregon House Bill 2251 passed the House on a mostly party-line 36-21 vote this week. It is aimed at banning cell phone use throughout the school day, and for the moment, it seems well positioned to become law.

A House committee already considered more than a half-dozen amendments and more are expected in the Senate, but the suggestion here is to simplify.

This is one of the hottest subjects this year in the Oregon legislature. It goes right to the heart of how Oregon’s school children and their parents have been accustomed to organizing their days.

At the same time, many parents and children are accustomed to being able to communicate instantly, and many students would not like the idea of giving up their phones for so many of their waking hours. The first submitted testimony on the new Oregon bill, in opposition to it, declared it “a solution in search of a problem. Let the school districts govern themselves.”

But the large number of people saying the problem is real, and the limited action on it by local districts, suggest that isn’t enough. Gov. Tina Kotek and the state Department of Education have registered support for restrictions; the department last year issued proposed model policies, without specifically imposing any.

Pressure is strong for kicking the phones at least partly out of the classroom. A Pew Research Center survey from last October found that more than two-thirds of American adults favor banning the phones during class. Just over a third support the prohibition for the whole school day. That’s a tell: Most Americans favor some restrictions, but with nuance. School employees are more lopsided; almost two-thirds of American high school teachers said cell phones have become a major distraction and impediment to learning.

Oregon’s Legislature is hardly alone considering bans. As of the end of last year, 11 states regulated (not necessarily banned outright) cell phone use during school hours, and at least 27 other states had introduced legislation on the subject. Since then, Idaho has added to the numbers, in the last few weeks enacting a cell phone limitation bill. In still other states, governors or agencies have imposed orders on the subject. School cell restrictions are becoming standard around the country.

The districts around the state are a policy jumble. Some have prohibition policies of various kinds in place; others do not. Portland Public Schools on Jan. 7 approved a rule similar to the current bill. Some are studying options. The Reynolds School District put together a work group which concluded, “We recommend an all-day ban on personal device use for grades K-12.” The state does not track comprehensively what the local districts do about this.

HB 2251, which is intended to require districts to ban use of “personal electronic devices”  would be more specific. It requires school districts to adopt a cell phone policy, and sets requirements for elements that must be included, and a lengthy list of exemptions (mainly medical, emergency and educational) to phone bans.

How all those specifics will play out is unclear. What the Oregon legislature could do, possibly ratcheting down the heat, is something like what the Idaho Legislature just did.

The Idaho measure, Senate Bill 1032, was simply a broad mandate to create local rules on the use of cell phones. Its key section said, “The provisions of this section shall not be construed to require a local school board or public charter school to adopt a policy that prohibits all use of electronic communications devices by students. However, local school boards and public charter schools may adopt a policy prohibiting students from carrying electronic communications devices in school buildings and on school grounds or premises during school hours. A local school board or public charter school that adopts such policy shall be considered to have met the requirement to adopt a policy under this section.”

Presumably, that will generate a good deal of action and discussion in school districts statewide, and by the time of next year’s legislative session, educators and legislators will have a clearer sense of what’s working and where the glitches are.

Oregon may also find that simpler, for now, is better. A legislature that requires local districts to set up rules will get a much clearer answer by next year than they could get from evaluating reactions to a one-size-fits-all bill.

This column originally appeared on the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

(image)

Oh, the humanities

April 19, 2025

The president of the United States is destroying the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), a tiny federal agency that has existed since the presidency of Lyndon Johnson.

The defunding of state humanities councils, including in Idaho, is a pathetically short-sighted move. Even worse it’s part of a comprehensive effort by the administration to further “dumb down” a nation where Donald Trump condescendingly celebrates “the poorly educated.”

Who cares, you might ask, if Elon Musk trashes a little federal agency that people who love history and anthropology value? And what are humanities anyway?

The NEH was created along with the National Endowment for the Arts in 1965 by an act of Congress. The legislation said, in part:

“An advanced civilization must not limit its efforts to science and technology alone but must give full value and support to the other great branches of scholarly and cultural activity in order to achieve a better understanding of the past, a better analysis of the present, and a better view of the future.”

The legislation passed with strong bipartisan congressional support because there was broad agreement with the kind of thinking embodied in the act.

“Democracy demands wisdom and vision in its citizens. It must therefore foster and support a form of education, and access to the arts and the humanities, designed to make people of all backgrounds and wherever located masters of their technology and not its unthinking servants.”

Those members of Congress were really “woke” back in 1965.

Full disclosure: I served on the Idaho Humanities Council years ago, chaired the board for many years and also chaired the Federation of State Humanities Councils, the organization that represents the NEH’s state affiliates in Washington. In that capacity I testified – my only time doing so – before a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee chaired by Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson. In those days Simpson was a big supporter of NEH (and the Arts), but that was pre-Trump. I can’t guess whether Simpson will oppose the administration’s budget chainsaw.

Share

My brief remarks back then supported the tiny NEH budget, and I tried to provide a sense of how the Idaho Council – and other state councils – use their federal funding.

For decades, for example, Idaho has sponsored an annual institute for teachers who are provided a modest stipend to do a week-long deep dive into a big subject. The institutes offer mid-career opportunities for teachers to spend time, typically on a college campus, with other teachers learning more about subjects as diverse as Abraham Lincoln’s presidency and the origin and importance of American roots music. The institutes feature fine scholars with deep understand of the subject on offer and the teachers leave the experience with new ideas about how to teach history, literature, religion, art history, law and philosophy.

State councils often sponsor traveling exhibits developed by the Smithsonian. Idaho has always tried to get those exhibits to rural communities in cooperation with local libraries or historical societies.

Councils, including Idaho’s, make small grants to scholars to help defray the cost of research often leading to an advance degree. Teacher can apply for a modest “incentive” grant to develop a class on a particular subject. The Idaho Council organizes a speaker’s bureau that matches speakers with local audiences, a service club, library of senior citizens center, for example. Former Idaho Lt. Governor David Leroy is listed as a current speaker.

A memorable part of my time on the Idaho Council were the annual lectures devoted to the humanities. The lectures began in Boise in 1997 when the celebrated historian of the Lewis and Clark Expedition Stephen Ambrose spoke about his book Undaunted Courage. The great David McCullough came to Idaho to talk about the importance of founding father John Adams. Novelist John Updike read some of his work before a packed house and insisted on visiting the old Idaho penitentiary during his Boise visit.

It's worth noting that the law creating the endowments specify that the governor of each state with a humanities council appoints 25% of the board, which has meant for the last 30 years Republican governors have appointed pretty conservative folks to the board, many who have been involved in GOP politics. Typically board members are educators, community volunteers, business people and folks like me who love history and literature and enjoy the opportunity make meaningful humanities-based opportunities available to everyone.

My experience at the national level provided an opportunity to visit several state councils. The NEH has long required state councils to conduct reviews of their programs and have those programs evaluated by outside observers. I’ll never forget a trip to Jackson, Mississippi for a site visit to the Mississippi Council, where a superb state director, Barbara Carpenter, showed off programs ranging from the history of southern cooking to the state’s fraught racial history. Civility and respect for different views are always at the heart of these efforts.

And the NEH’s inspector general has always been something of a legend given the agency’s scrutiny of state council spending. This is not the place to search for waste, fraud and abuse. It just doesn’t exist.

So, why has the Trump Administration stopped all NEH grant funding to councils in Idaho and every other state? State councils are creating close to home educational and enrichment options for millions of Americans who have, for more than 50 years, enjoyed access to such a rich and broad menu of humanities programs. So why kneecap this very American institution dedicated to learning and civility?

Here’s the New York Times:

The moves at the NEH came a day after all employees at the Institute of Museum and Library Services, another independent federal agency, were put on administrative leave, setting the stage for a potential shutdown. That development drew widespread condemnation from public library supporters in particular, who noted that the agency, which has an annual budget of roughly $290 million, provided a third to half of the budgets of many state library boards.

I admit to being baffled by this action. Why? What constituency benefits? And remember these are dollars specifically authorized by Congress.

The most recent NEH budget was $207 million, less than the cost of three F-18 fighter jets. By contrast, the Washington Post recently calculated that Elon Musk’s various business entities have, over the last 20 years, pulled in $38 billion in federal funding.

So go our priorities.

I’m left to conclude the obvious – the administration is waging a war on intelligence and learning. How else to explain attacks on libraries, colleges, research, the Department of Education, and state humanities councils? No great nation has ever celebrated poor education or a lack of learning.

Sadly, oh so very sadly, we now do just that.

Recommended: Subscribe to Marc's Substack.