Critics sometimes accuse conservatives of either supporting deregulation to ill effect, or else seeking to exert unnecessary control over people’s lives.

When it comes to our state, Idaho’s 2026 legislative session proved both narratives wrong. Idahoans clearly value protecting fundamental rights, upholding human dignity, and empowering families and taxpayers to do what they do best.
But it’s up to citizens like you to keep it that way, and Prop 1 will put on the ballot the most extreme threat to freedom and safety our state has seen in living memory.

Civil liberty is not just an absence of boundaries. It is a state in which rights are protected by a government held accountable by its people and focused on its constitutional and God-given roles. Here’s how the legislature sought this past session to follow these principles, and how Prop 1, if implemented, would represent a severe abrogation of the government’s responsibility to defend the health and safety of Idaho mothers and children.

Share

Improving Idahoans’ Lives via Responsible Stewardship

Housing costs, groceries, and property taxes take up an increasing share of Idahoans’ budgets in the face of inflation, supply chain issues, decreasing housing supply, and other economic factors. Even while navigating some initial revenue uncertainty (which was resolved favorably), Senate Republicans prioritized aligning the state with Trump’s federal tax cuts and saving Idahoans upwards of an estimated $155 Million yearly with House Bill 559.

Tax relief depends on responsible stewardship of your tax dollars, which was furthered this session by the passage of House Bill 516 and House Bill 928, stopping public resources from being funneled into private teacher unions and ideological DEI agendas.

We also addressed housing shortages by removing red tape that stifles the market, protecting the basic right to enjoy and improve one’s own property. We passed Senate Bill 1352, Senate Bill 1354, and House Bill 800 to lower barriers to the creation of starter homes, ADUs, and manufactured homes, working with professionals and city administrators to ensure infrastructural and safety considerations were addressed.

Allowing Qualified Professionals to Pursue and Do Their Jobs

Good deregulation removes artificial bureaucratic hurdles without sacrificing quality. We implemented this principle in Senate Bill 1285, ensuring homeschool graduates aren’t arbitrarily blocked from professional licensure provided they pass the necessary tests. In addition, we updated midwifery formulary code with House Bill 639 to allow midwives to administer lifesaving medications they are actively trained and certified to provide. We removed arbitrary barriers, but kept standards high.

Protecting Mothers and Children

With House Bill 602, Idaho’s legal sovereignty was defended from outside systems that undermine human dignity. This stopped Idaho from recognizing the legitimacy of, for example, Sharia-based rulings designed to strip mothers and wives of basic rights.

We also protected families by recognizing that children lack the maturity to navigate dangerous and life-altering decisions alone, and parents are responsible for guiding them. I sponsored House Bill 822, the Pediatric Secretive Transitions Act, to ensure schools can’t facilitate the “social transition” of children behind parents’ backs, and Senate Bill 1297, the Conversational AI Safety Act, to put parents in the driver’s seat with tools to protect kids from predatory chatbots. House Bill 542 expanded parents’ ability to do the same for their children with social media access.

We also passed House Bill 752 to legally secure sex-separated private spaces to protect women in vulnerable settings from the harassment and assaults which tend to concentrate when these spaces are mixed. A parent sending a daughter into the women’s restroom should have the peace of mind to know she will not be mingling with males.

An Imported Trojan Horse

While the legislature cuts harmful red tape and fights for the safety and prosperity of all Idahoans, Proposition 1 threatens to silently destroy many laws which protect the health of Idaho mothers, the safety of girls in difficult situations, and the lives of preborn babies.

This November 3rd, Proposition 1 is being marketed to Idahoans under the banner of “freedom” and “privacy.” In reality, it is a Trojan horse designed to radically undermine medical safety, strip away the rights of parents, and subvert our representative government by being structured to confuse voters and covertly invite courts to adjudicate the silent repeal of duly-enacted common-sense protections.

Here is a breakdown of the legal traps hidden inside Proposition 1:

Using the Courts to Covertly Replace Idaho Safeguards with California Craziness

Proposition 1 uses a deceptive preemption clause, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law,” to bulldoze Idaho law from the inside using California-style presumptions. Rather than explicitly asking voters to repeal informed consent and 24-hour waiting period requirements, physician-only and parental consent requirements for abortions, the Defense of Life Act, the Vulnerable Child Protection Act, and much more, the initiative’s out-of-state agenda relies on the judicial system to quietly strike down our safety laws by citing this newly invented, open-ended “privacy” right. By using open-ended phrasing such as ‘including but not limited to’ when defining protected care, the initiative lays the groundwork for a stealth legal umbrella for minors to access permanent sterilization or gender-transition treatments without parental knowledge, consent, or the court review requirement currently on the books (IC § 39-3903).

State-Sanctioned Secrecy vs. Parental Rights

By granting absolute privacy rights to “every person,” Prop 1 deliberately gives unemancipated minors independent medical autonomy, setting the stage for courts to make statutes protecting parental rights, such as IC § 32-1015, unenforceable.

Shielding Traffickers vs. Protecting the Vulnerable

Prop 1 prohibits the state from interfering with “any person or entity” who facilitates or aids someone securing an abortion. This would clearly render Idaho’s Abortion Trafficking Law (IC § 18-623) unenforceable. If a sex trafficker or abusive adult secretly transports a minor for an abortion, he could invoke Prop 1 as a legal shield against law enforcement. A parent should have the peace of mind to know it is against the law for a strange man to cover up his crimes by secretly trafficking the parent’s minor daughter for an irreversible, dangerous, and life-ending procedure.

Reckless Medical “Deregulation” vs. Clinical Standards

While the legislature seeks to carefully update laws to respect actual professional training, Prop 1 recklessly removes medical standards entirely. It uses the broad category of “health care provider” to grant legal immunity to untrained facilitators, overriding Idaho’s mandate that second-trimester and late-term abortions be performed exclusively by licensed physicians in fully equipped hospital settings (IC § 18-608). Furthermore, Prop 1 attempts to degrade not only the definition of human life, but redefines concepts such as viability extraordinarily restrictively as relating to survival without “extraordinary medical measures.” If NICU care (like intubation for premature babies) were understood as “extraordinary,” the viability line would be pushed far into the third trimester.

This allows elective abortion well after the point where babies can feel pain, which is objectionable even to most who support access to abortion.

Share

Even worse, it allows post-viability abortions if a condition “may” cause organ dysfunction. Under this absurd standard, even a small risk of non-life-threatening harm to any part of the body could justify terminating a viable late-term pregnancy that could otherwise have resulted in a live birth.

Special Industry Immunity vs. Patient Rights

Prop 1 would grant a significant measure of civil, criminal, and professional immunity to non-physician providers, severely restricting a patient’s ability to seek legal recourse for medical negligence. This is the text of that clause:

“In no case may reproductive health care provided consistent with this act by a health care provider be a basis for professional discipline, civil liability, or criminal liability as to a health care provider solely on the basis that the health care provider knowingly advised, assisted, facilitated, informed, referred, or otherwise aided a person in exercising their right to reproductive freedom and privacy.”

The carve-out might seem narrowly scoped to protect providers who are simply following the new law. However, the initiative’s description of the so-called ‘right’ in question is intentionally over-broad. Furthermore, vague language like ‘or otherwise aided’ means that prosecuting a negligent actor for actual patient harm would turn into a legal battle against a hydra of broad defenses.

Even when allowing wide access to abortion was federally mandated, Idaho code had far more patient protections than Prop 1 would allow for. There is good reason Idaho’s common-sense guardrails under Roe v. Wade ensured an abortion wouldn’t be performed by anyone other than a licensed physician in a well-equipped facility. Allowing the broad category of “health care provider” instead of the currently specified “licensed physician” to assist with an abortion at an arbitrary location would be a recipe for disaster. If the initiative drafters were confident otherwise, they would not need to hide behind broad liability shields.

Prop 1 also arguably constitutes a serious erosion of institutional conscience rights. While the initiative claims protection of conscience rights by specifically exempting Idaho Code § 18-611, which relates to individual doctors, it noticeably omits Idaho Code § 18-612, the statute protecting hospitals and institutions from being forced to furnish facilities for abortions. This omission may not have been accidental. Paired with the initiative’s mandate that the state cannot “discriminate against” access to reproductive care, faith-based networks could be pressed to provide unconscionable services under threat of being prosecuted for illegal discrimination. Under Prop 1, it is possible that Catholic hospitals, religious universities, and faith-based clinics could be sued or penalized by the state for simply operating according to their founding principles and refusing to facilitate abortions, and possibly even transgender procedures.

Public Fiscal Burdens vs. Stewardship of Taxpayer Dollars

Prop 1 could create an indeterminate but likely serious public financial burden. While claiming not to mandate public funding, federal and state Medicaid rules already require taxpayers to cover the medical complications arising from unsafe chemical abortions and substandard, non-physician procedures, a liability which could cost taxpayers thousands per claim. Further implicit requirements of Medicaid-related abortion services could also be argued, to say nothing of the long-term economic and social fallout that widespread elective abortion inflicts on family stability.

Share

Beware of Hollow Assurances

Please do not believe the campaign myths that this will help women or doctors. Under our current protections, Idaho’s maternal mortality rate has dropped from 18.7 to 4.29 per 100,000 live births. Doctors in Idaho have faced zero prosecutions. When activists claim our laws put women at risk, they often point to cases like the recent Seyb lawsuit. Yet in that very trial, the doctor who delayed care and flew a pregnant patient out of state admitted under oath that he had never read the Idaho Supreme Court ruling clarifying he could have provided care here.

Idaho law protects women; misinformation endangers them.

We can continue building a state that deregulates burdensome bureaucracy while preserving protections for children, safety, and parental rights, or we can allow deceptively-worded initiatives to use our own courts to strip those protections away.

Please encourage others to read the text, look past the slogans, and Vote No on Proposition 1 November 3rd. Click here to find your polling place.

In His Service and At Your Service,

Ben Toews

Idaho Senator – District 4

P.S. Check out IDSenateGOP.org for a helpful summary.
Further reading on the specifics of Proposition 1 has also been compiled by IdahoVotesLife.com.

Subscribe now

As the dust settles on the 2026 legislative session, I want to report back to you on this year’s accomplishments, what remains on the horizon, and the principles which guide my work in Boise.

In navigating the complexities of state government, we often witness a fundamental conflict of visions regarding the role of the state in relation to families. My goal has always been to champion a vision that empowers families, restrains government overreach, and upholds truth. Over the past few months, I have collaborated with constituents like you to draft, refine, and advocate for legislation that reflects these values.

The following is a breakdown of the bills I sponsored and fought for this year.

Expanding Opportunity & Cutting Red Tape

Economic strength is always hindered by arbitrary bureaucracy. This session, we successfully passed several measures to ensure Idahoans can freely pursue their livelihoods and make effective use of their property.

Senate Bill 1285 – Removing Arbitrary Barriers to Professional Licensing

• I sponsored and refined the language of S1285, which ensures citizens who meet the qualifications, training, and testing requirements for occupational and professional licenses that require high school graduation are not disqualified automatically by having graduated from nonpublic high schools. Not only do homeschool students demonstrate exceptional academic outcomes, but industry-related merit is already evaluated by existing licensure requirements.

House Bill 639 – Updating the Formulary for Midwives

• I worked with local health professionals to craft this bill updating obsolete formulary language. This ensures midwives are not prohibited from administering lifesaving medications they are well-trained to provide.

House Bill 721 – Public School Building Plans

• I sponsored this legislation to increase efficiency in the public works process by ensuring initial plan reviews are completed within 30 days, a reasonable requirement for a simple process. The legislation also removes a burdensome requirement that plans be approved before contractors and school districts are also allowed to advertise for bids. While a less exciting piece of legislation, taxpayers benefit from the reduction of unnecessary red tape.

House Bill 602 – Limiting Enforcement of Foreign Laws

• Throughout recent decades, we have seen foreign laws sweep methodically across Europe and into the United States. The most impactful of these is Sharia, a collection of restrictive Islamic rules meant to apply to Muslims and non-Muslims across every area of life. Successful efforts to demographically overtake cities and rewrite their laws to prioritize this system over fundamental rights have raised alarm, and the question of how to stand against this is multidimensional. While restoring sanity to immigration laws and contemplating specific preemption doctrines must be part of the picture, Idaho successfully closed a loophole this year by ensuring Idaho courts will no longer recognize, for example, family court decisions in Iran, which uses Sharia to deprive women of all meaningful rights.

• The process to achieve this was interesting. Senate Bill 1233, which would have precluded recognition of court actions “based on a body of religious or cultural law that does not fully support and conform with the rights of citizens as defined in the United States constitution and the constitution of the state of Idaho,” was initially introduced as a potential solution. However, serious concerns were raised as to how its vague language could be weaponized against the traditions and values that have built America. We thus opted for the more narrowly-tailored approach of H602, which I was glad to co-sponsor. Now law, its language guarantees due process by ensuring Idaho courts will not recognize applications of foreign laws which would not protect rights similar to those recognized in the Constitution. It also does not infringe on protected ecclesiastical activities, treaties, or companies that have agreed to be subject to foreign laws in other jurisdictions.

  Share

Tackling the Housing Crisis

Homeownership is the cornerstone of the American dream, but government overregulation has made it increasingly difficult to build and buy homes. As the current trend toward rental-only vertical density in our cities weakens our social and economic fabric, citizens have increasingly been calling for housing reforms to ensure families can build equity and keep the next generation from having to move elsewhere to find a home. For too long, restrictive policies have trampled on property rights and driven up prices, sinking us deeper into a predictable protracted housing crisis in which Idaho now stands as the second-least-affordable housing market in the nation. The time has come to deregulate, to empower citizens to make effective use of their property, and to unleash free-market solutions to reopen doors to homeownership.

Not only does allowing property owners to benefit from underutilized urban land help families thrive, but it also takes pressure off the endless push to expand outward into our valuable farmland. Ensuring various infrastructure realities are taken into account, we coordinated often with city officials and industry leaders on the viability of the bills’ language, and after modifying dozens of provisions, we took bold action to expand options for all generations of Idahoans.

Senate Bill 1352 – Removing Prohibitions on Starter Homes

• The median size of new single-family homes in the US has now surpassed 2,100 square feet, while the humble, affordable starter home returning GIs bought in the 1950s has all but vanished from the market. As this trend is often more due to artificial lot size minimums than to the desires of buyers, I sponsored this legislation to ensure developers are allowed to meet market demand by building the smaller homes which many young families need to become first-time homebuyers.

Senate Bill 1354 – Removing Bans on ADUs

• I sponsored S1354 to protect property rights by ensuring families are not unreasonably prohibited from constructing accessory dwelling units. Traditionally, families have often constructed mother-in-law suites to continue living with aging parents rather than relegating them to comparatively lonely and expensive senior living facilities. ADUs can also be a tool for adult children to continue living close to parents while saving for their own home. Removing regulatory barriers to family unity is an often-overlooked necessity of family policy.

House Bill 707 – Lot Splits Necessary for Financing

• I sponsored this bill to provide more flexibility for property owners trying to finance an ADU or secondary residential structure on their property. Under current rules, getting a separate mortgage for a backyard cottage or secondary unit often requires putting the property through a full, expensive, and time-consuming subdivision process. This bill streamlines the process in narrowly-defined cases without changing land-use classification or providing a backdoor for the creation of subdivisions.

House Bill 800 – Manufactured Homes

• Modern home manufacturing technology has advanced significantly from the time many laws most recently addressed them. I sponsored H800 to ensure code-compliant manufactured homes are allowed in certain instances in residential areas, increasing affordable options without compromising quality and safety.

While this session’s housing achievements were momentous, there is still work to do. Senate Bill 1353, which would have ensured property owners are able to build humble twin homes or duplexes on lots with enough size and infrastructural capacity to accommodate them, narrowly died in House Business after passing the Senate. The debate will continue next year, and if I am re-elected, I will continue to advocate for property rights and sensible housing laws.

Protecting Children, Families, and Communities

Among the highest duties of government is the protection of families and children. While this can sometimes be an uphill battle, Idaho has proven itself a national leader on this front. I am proud to report on several of this session’s landmark victories.

House Bill 822 – Pediatric Secretive Transitions Parental Rights Act

• The legislature took a vital step to protect children when we passed House Bill 71 (2023), the Vulnerable Child Protection Act, which banned destructive and irreversible gender transition procedures for minors. However, a loophole was left in the law: it did not mention ‘social transitions,’ the process by which vulnerable children are led into this pipeline.

• To address this threat to mental health and physical safety, I sponsored H822, which respects parents’ primary role in teaching and protecting their children. Parents should never be left in the dark regarding their own children’s health and development, and if a minor asks a trusted professional to participate in or facilitate a social transition or expresses interest in a destructive medical intervention, the school or healthcare provider must notify parents. The legislation also ensures social transitions are not aided or abetted without parental consent.

House Bill 752 – Protecting Women in Private Spaces

• The legislature has a fundamental duty to protect the privacy and safety of Idaho citizens. I sponsored House Bill 752 to provide a proactive tool to secure sex-separated private spaces in our state while accommodating common-sense realities.

• Anchored in Truth: This legislation acknowledges the undeniable biological reality of male and female. Private spaces such as restrooms, changing areas, and showers are sex-separated for a reason. Individuals in these vulnerable settings have a reasonable expectation of privacy and security.

• Rooted in Compassion: Protecting these spaces is not only about upholding expectations or preserving decency—it is empirically a matter of safety. True compassion requires defending the vulnerable from exploitation, rather than erasing basic boundaries out of a misplaced desire to be accepting. The United Kingdom is a prime example of a nation that shifted toward mixed-sex facilities, and the consequences have spoken for themselves. Analyzing this shift, a 2017 to 2018 Freedom of Information request into UK public swimming pools and sports centers found that out of 134 reported complaints of sexual misconduct, a whopping 120 incidents took place in gender-neutral changing rooms, compared to just 14 in single-sex areas. That means nearly 90 percent of these assaults happened where boundaries were erased, at a time when mixed-sex facilities still made up less than half of changing areas.

• Constitutionally Sound: H752 protects public safety and privacy while not infringing on speech or due process. Courts have long recognized sex-separated private spaces as constitutionally and legally permissible in workplaces, schools, and other places of accommodation, and this legislation provides for this without infringing on any rights regarding privacy or detainment. Its provisions are also practical, with clear definitions and exceptions to avoid prosecution of good-faith usage of space.

• Exceptions cover custodial services and maintenance, the need to render medical assistance, presence that is necessary for law enforcement, emergency aid or the protection of safety, situations where there are no alternatives reasonably available, dire physiological emergencies, spaces being temporarily redesignated, athletic coaching or training during events, and the need to accompany and assist someone who may not be of the designated sex, such as a minor child.

Senate Bill 1297 – Conversational AI Safety Act

• Our nation has seen too many tragedies of children driven toward suicide by unaccountable AI chatbots, with parents left in the dark until it was too late. I sponsored this piece of legislation to proactively empower parents and protect kids from very real risks associated with artificial intelligence. This includes reasonable measures regarding sexually explicit content, suicidal ideation notification, false representations of professional care, gamification techniques, and, most importantly, tools for parents to manage their child’s access.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 127 – Standing Against a Flood of Marijuana

• By adopting this resolution, the Senate formally urges Idaho citizens to reject any attempt to advance the Idaho Medical Cannabis Act, which would open the floodgates to widespread marijuana access. It has been plainly visible that other states’ legalization of marijuana has led to increases in human trafficking, cartel activity, violent crime, environmental issues, and serious health problems, notably for children and the preborn. The Idaho Medical Cannabis Act lacks safeguards to such an extent that it would effectively legalize widespread recreational use, with devastating impacts on children and families. I sponsored this resolution to encourage citizens to help Idaho remain the safe, healthy, and vigorous Unaltered State.

House Bill 785 – School Disciplinary Standards for Online Behavior

• This bill provides a valuable framework for public schools to address disciplinary issues which today’s digital environment has made difficult to respond to with conventional policies limited to school hours and physical premises. As the Senate floor sponsor, I argued that this approach strikes an effective balance between specificity and flexibility. It is specific enough to offer clarity and consistency for parents and teachers, and it leaves room for discretion in specific situations.

Senate Bill 1296 – Criminal Trespass of a Church and House Bill 615 – Disturbing the Peace

• Malicious threats are often used to chill speech and the practice of faith. In light of today’s environment of increasing animus against churches and worshippers, I sponsored these bills to clarify that existing laws around criminal trespass and disturbing the peace also protect religious assemblies and places of worship.

Honoring Our Heroes & Standing Against Violence

A functioning republic relies on deep respect for those who serve and a strict standard for nonviolent discourse.

House Concurrent Resolution 24 – Honoring our Fallen Firefighters

• I introduced HCR 24 on the Senate floor to highlight the ultimate sacrifices of Battalion Chiefs Frank Harwood and John Morrison Jr. and the bravery of severely injured Engineer David Tysdal. Their service is a testament to the best of Idaho, and the resolution served as a reminder of the legislature’s commitment to our first responders.

Senate Resolution 113 – Condemning Political Violence

• In the wake of the recent murders of Charlie Kirk as well as a Minnesota State Representative and her husband, this resolution calls upon all Idahoans, regardless of their background, party affiliation, or beliefs, to reject political violence, recommit to respectful and constructive debate, and uphold our shared values of civility, unity, and mutual respect as Americans.

Upholding Stewardship of Taxpayer Funds and Public Trust

House Bill 516 – No Taxpayer Funds for Teacher’s Unions

• I originally sponsored House Bill 745, which would have prohibited the taxpayer funding of government union activities. Despite passing the House 45-23, it unfortunately died in Senate Commerce & Human Resources. However, we were able to use the amendment process to bring a slightly more narrowly-tailored alternative, House Bill 516, across the finish line. This bill, now law, prohibits the taxpayer funding of teacher’s union activities. This victory for stewardship and sanity, which resulted from taking a different route after the original plan failed, is a great example of making a procedural compromise while remaining true to principles.

House Bill 928 – The Merit-Based Health Care Act

• This legislation prohibits the use of state medicaid funds to support discriminatory DEI employment practices. I sponsored this bill because Idahoans want high-quality care, and funding social agendas obsessed with race, gender identity ideology, equality of outcome, and class struggle will not achieve this goal.

House Bill 715 – Electoral Accountability for Public Libraries

• Under current law, cities with their own libraries have had to rely on an unelected body to hire and fire the Library Director. H715 brings accountability closer to voters by giving elected city councils a direct voice in these personnel decisions.

  Share

The Battles Ahead: Bills That Did Not Pass

The legislative process requires patience as bills are debated, refined, and rejected. Alongside S1353 (Twin Homes and Duplexes), several other important measures I sponsored did not make it across the finish line this year.

House Bill 783 – Equal Treatment for Health Care Sharing Ministries

• Under current Idaho law, Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) allow residents to receive tax deduction benefits for health-related expenses, but because Health Care Sharing Ministries (HCSMs) are not traditional insurance companies, expenses are not recognized under current law for MSA purposes. I sponsored this bill to allow HCSM expenses to qualify as eligible medical expenses for Idaho MSAs, but it died in House Revenue and Taxation.

House Bill 903 – Revising SNAP Definitions

• In order to ensure clear and consistent application of current law constraining SNAP benefit purchases to foods with nutritional value (i.e. excluding candy and soda), this legislation would have revised definitions to make it easier to determine which foods fit under which category. It was returned to committee, and the feedback received this session will ensure an improved draft next year.

House Bill 809 – Educational Continuity for Children

• When a child is removed from his or her home, an educational environment is often a crucial source of continuity in an otherwise confusing time. Rather than the DHW changing the child’s school environment by fiat, H809 would have created a rebuttable presumption that staying in the school of origin is in the best interest of the child, as well as a parental right to initiate a hearing contesting a change in school. I sponsored this bill because children deserve continuity, and parents’ rights to direct their children’s education should not be deprived without due process of law. In order to allow more time to coordinate with stakeholders including the Department to ensure the language was practicable and effective, we did not rush the process and plan to return next year with the best language possible.

Senate Bill 1310 – Human Fetal Tissue Transparency Act

• Currently, products containing or developed using human fetal tissue, embryonic cells, or derivative biological matter such as fetal DNA are sold without disclosure, preventing consumers from making fully informed decisions. Most Idahoans would be horrified to know they were consuming materials derived from aborted babies. I sponsored this labelling requirement to ensure consumers have the transparency they deserve to make purchasing choices that align with their values. While it died in Senate Commerce & Human Resources, I will bring this debate into more public view next year.

House Bill 915 – Mandatory Daily Recess

• After it passed the House unanimously, I presented this bill in Senate Education to mandate daily recess for K-5 students. While it did not advance further this time, I will continue to advocate for young children to be given developmentally-necessary opportunities to exercise, ensuring they can focus and learn effectively. I look forward to revisiting the issue next year.

Looking Forward

I am deeply grateful for the trust you have placed in me to represent District 4. We secured major victories for the free market, parental rights, and the rule of law this year, but the work is never truly finished. I look forward to settling back into life in Coeur d’Alene, hearing directly from you, and preparing for the challenges ahead.

In His Service and At Your Service,

Ben Toews

Idaho Senator – District 4

Subscribe now

To approach the issue, we must first understand its causes.

Share

How We Got Here

We didn’t end up in this predicament naturally. While macroeconomic factors like subprime interest rates, inflation, and broader economic logjams certainly play a role, we are also dealing with localized artificial scarcity due to decades of restrictive local policy. As these regulations fall under the authority of the state, it is incumbent on the legislature to preempt the kinds of provisions which most infringe on individual property rights and prevent market-based solutions for the next generation of homebuyers.

For most of our nation’s history, property rights were governed by the simple common-law “nuisance doctrine,” which ensured you could build what you wanted on your land as long as it didn’t directly harm your neighbor. However, American property law made a dramatic lurch toward modern central planning a century ago with the landmark 1926 U.S. Supreme Court case, Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., which declared the constitutionality of strict municipal zoning. While lower federal courts initially struck down this kind of zoning as unconstitutional overreach, the Supreme Court chose to break with precedent. Since then, local governments across America have increasingly sidelined fundamental property rights. We have steadily replaced the invisible hand of the free market and the natural evolution of neighborhoods with bureaucratic central planning that dictates exactly what can and cannot be built. While zoning authority has legitimate uses in protecting children, public order, and the character of communities, jurisdictions have increasingly used their broad latitude to surpass reasonable restrictions.

The State of Housing in Idaho

The residential real estate market in Idaho and across the country has been on an especially concerning trajectory for the past few decades. The median single-family home value in this state is over $462,200 (Zillow), with Redfin estimating a median sale price of $507,400. The national median age of a first-time homebuyer has crept upward from 29 in the early 1980s to 40 years old this year, with first-time buyers making up an all-time low share of 21%. Perhaps most telling, the size of the average home has ballooned to over 2,100 square feet, while the humble, affordable starter home—the kind returning GIs bought in the 1950s—has all but vanished from the market.

These figures do not reflect a lack of demand. Artificial scarcity has led Idaho to be, by one calculation, short 44,500 homes. It is no surprise that in recent polling, 67% of Idaho residents identified the cost of buying or renting as a “big problem,” making it clear that housing attainability should be top priority for the state legislature.

A Fork in the Road: A Rentership Society vs. An Ownership Society

If these trends continue, the future is not difficult to predict: the vast majority of our citizens will be permanent renters. We must ask ourselves if that is the future we want.

When we shift from a society of owners to a society of renters, we lose the primary vehicle for generational wealth creation, as well as the deep community roots which naturally fight poverty and crime. The data on this is unequivocal:

• Crime and Safety: Neighborhoods with high rates of homeownership consistently demonstrate lower crime rates. A landmark 2023 study analyzed a massive “Right to Buy” program that converted renters into owners and found that, without changing people’s demographics, ownership of property generated significant, persistent reductions in both property and violent crime. Regardless of whether the specific program was advisable, it stabilized enough variables to clearly illustrate that, regardless of demographics, homeowners have a natural stake in the public order and prosperity of their society.

• Family Stability: Controlling for income and demographics, homeownership acts as a stabilizing anchor for families. Recent economic research has found that homeownership is associated with a 23% reduction in the overall divorce rate.

• Educational Outcomes: Because homeowners move far less frequently than renters, their children experience much greater curriculum continuity. A comprehensive review of peer-reviewed data compiled by the National Association of Realtors discusses strong evidence associating homeownership and residential stability with higher high school graduation rates and fewer behavioral issues.

• Civic Engagement: Homeowners are significantly more likely to vote in local elections and participate in neighborhood groups because their financial well-being is directly tied to the health and safety of their geographic community.

• Wealth Creation: Homeownership is the single most reliable wealth-building tool in our society. According to the Federal Reserve, the median net worth of a homeowner had nearly reached $400,000 by 2022, compared to $10,400 for a renter. While other variables impact this difference, it is undeniable that, while rent is a 100% expense, a mortgage is a forced savings plan, building equity through mortgage payments and appreciation.

We are currently on a path toward a Rentership Society, drifting further toward a nanny state where economic dependence is the norm. Centering power in local bureaucracy to maximize inertia and stifle the free market is not economical, it is incompatible with property rights, and it weakens a free people.

Returning to a Market-Based Approach

There is another way. I am introducing a suite of legislation designed to break the regulatory stranglehold and unleash the market to build the homes Idahoans actually need.

These bills cut the red tape standing in the way of attainable homes. Each piece of legislation has been painstakingly negotiated to respect the interests of cities, counties, HOAs, and utilities, preserving the character of our communities and the integrity of our infrastructure while standing up for economic opportunity for first-time homebuyers.

The first three of the following bills were presented in the Senate Commerce and Human Resources Committee on February 17. To incorporate valuable feedback and ensure the strength of each approach, I will be reintroducing updated versions of these bills this coming week.

Subscribe now

1. The Return of the ADU: Lifting Bans on Small Homes (Formerly S1277)

This bill prevents local entities from arbitrarily restricting Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Whether it is a “mother-in-law suite” or a detached cottage, ADUs restore the freedom for property owners to use their land as they see fit.

• For Families: It allows a private cottage for an aging parent or a space for an adult child saving for their own home.

• For Income: It provides a steady income stream to help homeowners pay down their own mortgages.

• For the Workforce: It unlocks rentals for the nurses, firefighters, and waiters who serve our communities but currently can’t afford to live in them.

• For Small Business: It allows small local contractors who can’t compete for massive subdivision contracts to enter the market and grow a stable industry.

2. The Starter Home: Smaller Lots & Modest Builds (Formerly S1279)

We need to legalize the starter home again. Current zoning often mandates large lots and large builds—effectively forcing builders to create “McMansion” neighborhoods. This legislation allows “Starter Home Subdivisions,” new housing tracts on at least four acres to utilize smaller lots.

• Preserving the Landscape: By allowing more homes on less land, we actually reduce sprawl and land waste, protecting our agricultural and wild areas from over-development.

• Affordability: Lot sizes directly relate to home prices. By reducing arbitrary lot minimums, we allow the market to build homes at price points young families can actually afford.

3. The “Missing Middle”: More Home Choices (Formerly S1280)

This bill ends bans on twin homes and duplexes in residential areas. For too long, zoning has segregated communities by only allowing the wealthiest to purchase big, standalone homes.

• Efficient Land Use: These modest homes can be efficiently incorporated into neighborhoods that already have infrastructure, jobs, and amenities, rather than pushing development further out.

• Restoring Freedom: It restores the right of builders to choose home types that fit the local market demand, rather than what the city council dictates.

4. Modern Manufactured Housing (H647)

Outdated zoning rules have stigmatized and banned manufactured homes, but modern technology has changed the game. Today’s manufactured homes are safe, durable, and often indistinguishable from traditional site-built homes. Because they are built in factories year-round without weather delays or material waste, they are naturally cheaper and quicker to deploy. This is especially vital for our rural communities, ensuring residents don’t have to leave their towns just because their housing needs change.

5. “Shot Clocks”: Ending Permitting Purgatory

Time is money. When developers are stuck in infinite loops of city council meetings and permit reviews, those carrying costs are passed directly to you, the buyer. We are introducing legislation to establish a statutory timeline for local governments to process housing applications.

• Predictability: If a decision isn’t provided within the timeframe, the application is deemed approved.

• Lower Costs: By stopping indefinite delays, we lower the barrier for smaller home builders who cannot afford to wait months for a “yes” or “no.”

Answering Objections

I have heard concerns during committee testimony primarily focusing on two areas: Infrastructure and Density. While we have worked with stakeholders to address many worthwhile criticisms, it is important that we also address the following misconceptions.

“Isn’t this just another way to increase harmful density?”

The question of how to respond to increasing population density has always been a serious one. An effective response must acknowledge that not all density is created equal. Vertical Density, characterized by corporations responding to housing shortages by building mid-rise and high-rise developments to rent out, yields dependence. Horizontal Density is characterized by citizens buying and improving their own property. This legislation is not about increasing density; it is about lowering barriers to horizontal density and taking pressure off the demand for vertical density by converting renters into owners. Horizontal density preserves the character and strength of communities far more than vertical density does.

“Doesn’t this undermine local control?”

There is nothing more local than an individual choosing what to do with his or her property. This legislation is the state carrying out its primary responsibility to protect individual rights. Bureaucratic central planning is not a recipe for success, and, far from seeking to impose this, the state is standing against it.

“What about the roads and sewers?” Concerns about infrastructure are entirely valid. However, we must acknowledge reality: without significant changes, the next generation of Idahoans will be forced to move elsewhere if they want to own a home. We can either force them into sprawling developments far from town (which strains infrastructure more and requires miles of new pipes), or we can allow organic infill where infrastructure already exists.

Furthermore, these pieces of legislation do not bypass infrastructure realities, ensuring these housing types remain fully subject to local infrastructural and safety standards. The intent is to create parity: if a single-family home would be denied due to safety issues, easement impingement, or inadequate infrastructure capacity, a twin home or ADU would be denied for the exact same reason. We are protecting infrastructure while removing arbitrary zoning bans.

“It will ruin the character of our neighborhoods.”

There is a fear that ‘density’ means skyscrapers next to farmhouses. That is a strawman. We are talking about gentle density—a cottage in a backyard, or a duplex that looks virtually identical to a single-family home. The choice isn’t between “no growth” and “Manhattan.” The choice is between Vertical and Horizontal Density. I prefer the latter. I prefer a society of owners.

A Challenge to the Next Generation

The next generation will either thank us for being visionary enough to restore the free market, or they will live with the results of our inaction: a state of permanent renters, dependent on government, priced out of the American Dream.

Whether we choose property rights and freedom over central planning and fear will reveal the true character of conservatism to the next generation. Let’s choose freedom.

In His Service and At Your Service,

Ben Toews

Idaho Senator - District 4

Share

As your State Senator for District 4, I am proud to report on a highly successful 2025 legislative session and to share my priorities for the upcoming 2026 session. Together, we are working to ensure Idaho remains a place where families thrive, individual liberty is protected, and the government is accountable to you, the taxpayer. My ongoing commitment is centered on lower taxes, family-friendly communities, and a limited government that focuses on protecting citizens’ inalienable rights.

This term I was elected to serve in Senate Leadership as the Senate Republican Caucus Chair, which allowed me to represent you in weekly meetings with House Leadership and the Governor. Additionally, I chose to serve on the Local Government and Taxation Committee to support the legislation that most directly impacts the finances of Idaho households along with the State Affairs Committee which deals with many of the most controversial and important issues in the statehouse.

2025 Legislative Session Recap

The last session delivered significant victories for our shared values and economic prosperity:

• Expanding Health Freedom: We championed measures to protect individual medical choices. This included a law to prohibit K-12 schools, colleges, and universities from requiring mandatory “medical interventions” (such as vaccines or certain testing) for students, staff, and visitors (S1210), and an act to ban state, local, and school district mask mandates (H32). We also secured “right of conscience” protections for healthcare providers based on religious or moral beliefs (H59).

• Prohibiting Compulsory DEI Programs: I was proud to author legislation that successfully banned Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) for required classes, offices, and mandatory training in hiring and admissions across Idaho’s public colleges and universities (S1198). This ensures our higher education system remains focused on the pursuit of truth and academic excellence, not ideological agendas.

• Offering School Choice: We delivered on the promise of educational freedom by creating the Idaho Parental Choice Tax Credit, the state’s first private education choice program (H93). This program provides up to a $5k refundable tax credit per student (and more for students with disabilities) to help families access the educational setting that best fits their children’s unique needs, including tuition and tutoring. For new students who would otherwise have attended a public school, this saves taxpayers an estimated $8k/student each year, since between state and federal funding, the average annual cost per student is about $13k.

• Reducing Idahoans’ tax burden was a top priority of the session resulting in over $400 million in tax relief, including $253 million in income tax (H40), a $50 million increase in the grocery tax credit (H231), and a $100 million property tax reduction (H304). These will provide much-needed relief to taxpayers burdened by the high inflation experienced over the last few years.

  Share

Priorities for the 2026 Session

Looking ahead, my focus for the 2026 session will be on tackling the critical issues of access to home ownership and lowering property taxes to protect the Idaho way of life:

• Tackling Housing Hurdles: The price of housing continues to be a burden on Idaho families. I will champion deregulation and common-sense reforms to reduce unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles and permit costs that drive up construction costs, thereby enabling free-market solutions to home ownership.

• Lowering Property Taxes for Homeowners: Property tax relief remains one of my top priorities. I’ve drafted legislation to double the homeowner’s exemption from $125k to $250k. I’ll continue to work with my colleagues to enact legislation that will lower property taxes for the hardworking people of Idaho.

Taking a Stand Against Harmful Initiatives

Finally, I urge you to remain vigilant against initiatives that seek to undermine our values and public safety. Two initiatives currently gathering signatures for the 2026 ballot warrant your firm opposition:

• Legalization of Marijuana: The “Decriminalize Cannabis Now Initiative” poses a significant threat to our communities, increasing public safety risks and youth access to controlled substances.

• Allowing Abortion in Idaho: The so-called “Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act” seeks to enshrine a right to abortion up to the point of fetal viability, effectively overturning our current laws that protect the life of the preborn.

Please stand with me in opposing these measures to safeguard our State’s foundational principles.

It is an honor to serve you and fight for conservative values in the Idaho State Senate. Please do not hesitate to reach out to my office with your feedback, concerns, or ideas.

Sincerely,

Ben Toews

Idaho State Senator – District 4

Subscribe now

1. Sales tax is nearly the only way nonresidents contribute to the funding of the infrastructure and services they use when visiting Idaho, and retaining the credit instead of creating an exemption helps maintain revenue from them.

2. The increased credit options are enough to cover grocery tax for the average family.

In voting to increase the credit this year as part of our three-pronged tax relief package of over $400 million, I believe we have progressed in the right direction, although this has by no means eliminated the need for increased tax relief next year. The following is an overview of this legislation and its implications.

House Bill 231 - Raising the Grocery Credit

On March 5, the Senate passed H231 30-3, which raises the grocery credit Idahoans can claim on their tax returns from $120 to $155 per person, the senior credit also increasing from $140 to $155. Additionally, taxpayers will now be able to itemize their grocery purchases to be refunded up to $250 per person in actual taxes paid. I believe the credit increase, signed into law the week after, is a step in the right direction to provide citizens with comprehensive, long-term tax relief. That said, I greatly respect my colleagues who would have preferred the approach of H260, a personal bill with the concept of exempting groceries from state sales tax altogether. Let’s look at the numbers.

Raising the Credit Ensures Nonresidents Pay for Services They Use

Full repeal would require Idahoans to foot the bill for $24 Million worth of services currently paid for by nonresidents. As the grocery credit is only available to Idaho citizens, the bill we passed this year ensures tax relief is directed only to Idaho citizens rather than to nonresidents.

Legal visitors contribute $18.2 Million in state sales tax on groceries.

According to a Dean Runyan Associates report, “The Economic Impact of Travel in Idaho,” visitors to Idaho spent $304 Million at food stores in 2023. The report’s data compilation method suggests that this category gives a good picture of grocery spending. With Idaho’s 6% sales tax, we may thus estimate that visitors contribute $18.2 Million per year in grocery tax.

Illegals pay $5.8 Million in grocery tax.

Associated Taxpayers of Idaho estimates that, as illegal immigrants pay $72.4 Million in sales tax, they pay about $5.8 Million in grocery tax. This is calculated with the assumption that grocery tax makes up 8% of the sales tax they pay.

If visitors contribute $18.2 Million in grocery tax and illegal immigrants contribute $5.8 Million, repeal could lose Idaho $24 Million in grocery tax revenue from visitors and illegals. This loss in revenue from those who use our resources and services but do not contribute income or property taxes would force Idahoans to provide the funding, which could ultimately have a similar effect as a $24 Million tax increase in the long run.

H231 Covers Grocery Tax Liability for Most Families, Based on Estimated Expenditures

ATI estimates that, with the previous tax credit, the average family of 4 has incurred a net loss of $35 annually on grocery taxes, and that, with this month’s passage of H231, they will now have a net gain of $105. These calculations are based on an estimate from BLS data that 8% of an average family’s expenditures are on Food At Home, the category corresponding to groceries. Adjusting existing data for inflation to December 2024 prices, the average family of four (with an annual income after taxes of $128,852 and average annual expenditures of $107,001) would spend about $8,588 on applicable food items, which corresponds to $515 in sales tax. With the previous credit of $120 per person, the family would receive $480 back, resulting in a net loss of $35. With the increased credit of $155 per person, the family would net a gain of $105. Given that many families are receiving more from the credit than they are paying in grocery tax, outright repeal would have a negative impact on a large number of citizens, especially those with lower incomes. These figures do not account for the $250 itemization option, which is provided in case this credit is insufficient. However, these ATI estimates suggest that the increased $155 grocery credit should fully offset grocery tax for most families without needing itemization.

Subscribe now

The Total Value of the Increased Credit is Comparable to Total Grocery Tax Revenue

After considering the impact of the credit on a given family, a second method for assessing the sufficiency of the credit involves a broader estimation of tax revenue.

Calculating Total Grocery Tax Revenue: Drawing on Utah’s state revenue data and controlling for factors such as income, a Legislative Services Office report estimates that 12.4% of Idaho’s sales tax revenue comes from the sale of groceries. The same report describes an alternative measurement method using BLS consumer expenditure surveys to estimate that grocery tax accounts for 10.7% of total sales tax revenue. Averaging the results of the two approaches, we may estimate that Idaho’s grocery tax revenue is $407.1 Million.

Calculating the Total Value of the Increased Credit: Using Idaho’s current population of 2.002 million, if we assume the $155 credit will be claimed for everyone, the value of the credit would be $310.3 Million. If every family were able to itemize to $250 per person in grocery taxes, the credit would total $500.5 Million. While it is true that some people, such as those on food stamps, are not eligible for the grocery credit, and that some able to itemize will choose not to, the estimated $407.1 Million in revenue is still solidly within the estimated range for the credit.

This suggests that the total value of the credit approximately covers the amount collected from Idahoans in sales tax, especially when considering that $24 Million of the revenue we estimated comes from non-Idahoans. Any potential gap is further closed because this revenue estimate includes an outsize portion from those who choose to buy more expensive groceries. If taxes on these are not fully covered, it will not be contrary to the legislative intent to relieve affordability concerns.

Other Considerations

Grocery tax credits also have a variety of economic benefits over simple exemptions, such as being less detrimental to economic growth and preserving the budgetary stability generated by sales tax, one of the most consistent sources of revenue especially when compared to income tax. For more worthwhile discussion on this topic, consider this article by the Tax Foundation.

While I understand the desire to do away with the credit and create an exemption, I believe this year’s legislation has advanced us in the right direction, and I will continue to fight for increased relief next year. Regardless of your position on the matter, I hope I have helped you understand more of the factors at play; the better informed we are, the better prepared we will be next year to discuss and seek the most effective ways to keep money in citizens’ pockets.

Please don’t hesitate to email me with any questions or ideas on future tax relief.

In His Service and At Your Service,

Ben Toews

Idaho State Senator – District 4

Share

Here are their petitions made from the quiet places of their hearts and homes through this flawed vessel. May The Lord bend near and hear the voice of His people today. Please join me in prayer:

My Prayer: Heavenly Father, We thank You for this Beautiful state of Idaho, for our precious freedoms, for the abundant resources, and for the people who make Idaho such a wonderful place to live. We thank You that You have not left us without a compass, Your truth is our guiding light. Enable us to be excellent stewards of all of these blessings You have so graciously given us. Establish us in Your principles, may we be rooted and grounded in love for You and each other; provide us with guidance and direction and humility, as Your word says You resist the proud, but You give grace to the humble, forgive our pride and open up our eyes and ears to understand the goodness of God. Lord, let Idaho be known as a place that upholds Your standard for what is right and just and wise; give those in authority discernment, integrity, and courage to defend and protect the most innocent and vulnerable. May we have a justice system that does not judge unjustly, but rather follows the path of righteousness and rescues those being led away to destruction. Protect our state from any influences that would seek to cause harm, and guard us from greed and corruption so future generations here can live in peace and blessing. Oh, Creator of heaven and earth, HEAL THE BROKEN SOUL of our culture, every city, school, business, family, and individual. And may Idaho prosper as our soul prospers. We ask these things in the name that is above every name, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Share

H93 and Education Freedom

Low student outcomes and Leftist worldviews imposed in public schools have increasingly highlighted the importance of Education Freedom for many parents. Education Freedom is the right of the People to educate their children as they see fit. This involves the broadening of parents’ options in their children’s education, with a special focus on eliminating governmental restrictions on and suppression of non-public education. H93 advances Education Freedom by expanding School Choice. As exclusive government funding creates a monopolistic environment which suppresses other options (and taxpayers who refuse to send their kids into the failing system are still forced to subsidize it), supporting comparable choices allows market forces to better combat the current monopolistic suppression. While some might argue against any governmental involvement in education, Article IX Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution declares our legislature has the duty “to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.” Acknowledging this duty, School Choice is the movement to increase parents’ agency over taxpayer money and resources meant for their children’s education. While this can apply to public school open enrollment policies (Public School Choice) and Charter Schools, the most direct application is the quest to find ways where the Money Follows the Child (Full School Choice).

States all across the nation have a variety of School Choice policies. There are three main ways to empower parents to allocate their children’s education funding. The first is a Voucher Program, a system where parents receive certificates of funding for direct tuition payments to qualifying private schools. The second is Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), where parents are given a savings account to use for certain defined educational purposes. The third is a Refundable Tax Credit, which allows parents of non-public-school students to subtract education-related expenses up to a certain amount from their tax liability, and to be refunded the rest if the credit exceeds what they owe in taxes. This approach is the most streamlined and least bureaucratically-intensive, not inviting as many possibilities of arbitrary governmental restrictions. There is no government-generated list of specific schools or vendors which are or are not eligible for the credit; parents claim the credit for “qualified expenses” defined based on purposes or types of program, not an approved list of organizations. This supports innovative small-scale arrangements such as the use of tutoring services. It also does not require a new bureaucracy to protect against misuse, as serious penalties already exist for tax fraud.

School choice not only empowers parents to seek the paths best for their individual children, but, by harnessing free-market forces, it also is likely to lower costs to taxpayers overall, as competition strengthens the relationship between costs and outcomes everywhere. Per-student costs at private schools are sometimes thousands of dollars less than at public schools, and good school choice proposals cut costs by giving parents less money than is spent per student in the public school system. Furthermore, competition brought by school choice could even raise outcomes at public schools, as some studies suggest. For more research on the effects of school choice policies, check out a summary by Dr. Patrick J. Wolf.

Idahoans Support School Choice

The Mountain States Policy Center, a respected free market research organization, conducts an annual scientific poll on various issues. Their Idaho Poll at the end of 2024 showed strong support for an education choice tax credit.

Notably, this support is broad, including 73% of Republicans, 61% of Independents, and 53% of Democrats. Education reform doesn’t have to be partisan; it’s just common sense.

Subscribe now

Timeline of School Choice Proposals in Idaho

There have been many school choice bills which have been introduced and have failed over the years in the State Capitol. The following is a selection of these.

In 1997, the Idaho Legislature considered H342 (1997), which would have granted a tax credit of $500 per student to parents or guardians of school-aged children who did not enroll those children in a public school and were having them educated elsewhere. This bill did not pass. Analyzing it, the AG opined that, while “it is probable that the bill would be upheld as constitutional,” “the constitutionality of HB 342 remains somewhat unclear” in light of questions of possible benefits to religious schools which would potentially violate the Idaho Constitution’s Blaine Amendment.

The next year, recognizing the seriousness of the existing financial burden to parents who pay for their children’s education while also paying taxes to support public education, HCR39 (1998) would have created a committee to study tuition tax credits or deductions for Idaho taxpayers who do not use the public school system. While this resolution passed the House 52-13, it died in Senate State Affairs.

In the spirit of the failed resolution, H686 (2000), which would have created a tax credit for a person or corporation’s donation directly to a parent educating their child outside the public school system, was introduced, but it never made it out of committee. A similar bill, H311 (2001), was introduced the next year, which also added the possibility of parents receiving the credit for their own expenditures. While it passed the House 36-32, it died in Senate Education. These two bills’ statements of purpose imply that the emphasis on parents themselves benefiting rather than schools was “to insure constitutionality” in light of the aforementioned AG’s opinion, concerned that a credit too “dependent upon the payment of tuition” could run afoul of the Blaine Amendment with regard to religious schools.

H76 (2005), another bill with the same concept, died in committee as well. Seven years later, H670 (2012), which was passed out of committee, changed the approach slightly, proposing a credit for donations to official scholarship granting organizations, but it was eventually sent back to committee.

H253 (2019) changed course, advocating for an Education Savings Account program of 90 percent of average per-student funding from the general fund. It died in House Education.

In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibits religious schools from being specifically excluded from school choice programs, regardless of a state’s Blaine Amendment. Thus, as EdChoice puts it, “Legislators who were once burdened with the fear of hostile and costly litigation with an uncertain result if they adopted school choice programs may now proceed to help their parent constituents by providing educational options for their children.” For a more in-depth analysis of the implications of Supreme Court rulings for school choice in Idaho, check out the February 7 newsletter in my 2023 Session Archive. While this and other rulings laid to rest concerns associated with the 1997 AG opinion, it did not change the atmosphere overnight.

The next year, H294 (2021) tried to combine a $500 grant prioritizing lower income families with a scholarship calculated similarly to the previous ESA, but, after passing the House 47-22, and even when the scholarship portion was removed via amendment, the Senate killed it 16-18.

H822 (2022) then tried to introduce another ESA similar to 2019’s legislation, but it died in House Ways & Means.

S1038 (2023), yet another ESA bill, failed 12-23 in the Senate.

H447 (2024) sought a change of approach from ESAs to a Refundable Tax Credit. This bill specifically emphasized not directing any money from the general fund away from public schools. Even so, the House Revenue and Taxation Committee rejected it 10-7.

After all these setbacks and refinements, the legislature introduced H93 (2025). Similar to last year’s bill, it creates a refundable tax credit of up to $5,000 per eligible student ($7,500 for those with special needs) for parents incurring qualified educational expenses, including tuition, tutoring, standardized test fees, textbooks, and transportation related to nonpublic K-12 education. This is significantly less than the average per-student spending in Idaho public schools (The US Census Bureau estimates Idaho spent $9,670 per student in 2022). The program has a $50 Million cap, and, while generally being first-come-first-serve, provisions include a prioritization for families with incomes up to 300% of the federal poverty level, and a potential for a one-time advance payment in those parents’ first year of participation.

The Idaho Parental Choice Tax Credit is both accountable and non-cumbersome. Transparency is ensured by the State Tax Commission’s administration of the program and annual reporting to the legislature. Unlike much public school education, parents themselves will increase educational accountability by determining what is best for their children. And as already mentioned, tax filing is already a system which severely disincentivizes misrepresentation. Schools also are protected from government overreach by the provision that the bill’s language cannot “permit any government agency to exercise control or supervision over any nonpublic school or to give the state authority to regulate the education of nonpublic school students” and that schools may not be forced to alter their “creed, practices, admissions policy, or curriculum” to accept students whose payment of tuition or fees stems from the credit. As described earlier, a tax credit is the best method of education choice to ensure this protection, as it does not invite a gatekeeping bureaucracy with lists of approved and rejected schools or organizations. In addition to these measures, parents will fill out satisfaction and engagement surveys. This legislation ensures parents have excellent options for their children’s unique educational needs while minimizing government intervention.

For the past few years, some homeschool families have raised objections to school choice legislation, concerned that a credit could come with strings attached and invite regulation of homeschooling. The homeschool movement is diverse, and we have listened to many voices of those concerned about implications for regulation, in addition to those who see the credit as potentially beneficial. I believe we have seriously addressed each of the concerns in drafting the provisions of H93, and we continue to take any concerns and suggestions seriously. I and my wife have homeschooled all of our children, and we are committed to ensuring the autonomy of families in education. This legislation does not force homeschoolers to do anything. One complexity in this process is that, while some homeschool families do not want the ability to be reimbursed for any of their educational expenses, it is difficult to exclude homeschoolers as a group; this could involve narrower definitions infringing on freedom of association and privacy. This issue seems to have materialized in H164 (2025), a competing bill which was rejected; while that proposed credit did exclude homeschool families, it would have subjected parents to an application process involving student testing and other matters, in addition to being administered by the State Department of Education’s regulatory bureaucracy, which might have restricted or shaped the program negatively.

Families do have a right to their own taxpayer money, and I have heard this from many homeschool families. And yet I do agree with some detractors of H93 that a property tax exemption is the most straightforward way to relieve the double burden to homeschoolers from paying both for their own children’s education and the public system. This is why I also introduced S1074, which would exempt families with a school-aged child who do not accept any educational funds from the state (including via use of the public school system) from education-related property tax levies on their primary residences. I will continue to fight for this solution in the future.

The Status of H93 and Future Education Freedom Legislation

Two weeks ago, President Trump gave H93 his full endorsement, signaling its alignment with his national education freedom agenda.

After passing the House 42-28 and the Senate 20-15, Governor Little signed the bill into law yesterday, bringing the People’s desire for Education Freedom one step closer to fruition.

This landmark victory is cause for celebration, but we will not rest in it. I will continue to advocate for the non-public-school tax exemption, and, first thing next session, I will work to reintroduce HJR1, which fell short of the required two-thirds majority in the House by a single vote. Our current position of strength does not provide an excuse to stop being vigilant; it is instead the perfect time to insist on enshrining fundamental education freedom in our State Constitution, as a heritage to future generations. Let’s continue to Raise The Standard in our education system together.

In His Service and At Your Service,

Ben Toews

Idaho State Senator – District 4

Share

Last week in Senate State Affairs, I introduced S1048, the legislation recommended by the Interim Committee on DEI which the legislature created last year. Serving on this committee has been a worthwhile opportunity to highlight the impact of Critical Theory on our education establishment, and to clarify the best ways to combat the administrative suppression of open inquiry caused by DEI, Critical Theory’s social enforcement mechanism, in our public colleges and universities.

What is DEI Anyway?

One could be forgiven for assuming a short acronym has a simple definition, but its real meaning is hard to pin down. This is by design, as the acronym itself is based on Doublethink, the Left’s method of co-opting language for purposes unrelated to reality. “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” does not mean diversity, equity, or inclusion. The DEI model of “Diversity” is a collection of people with chosen ratios of token surface-level differences united in socially-enforced and administratively-ensured homogeneity of thought. Diversity matters, but it is diversity of thought which counts the most, and which DEI values least. Likewise, DEI’s “Equity” is the opposite of true equity. The King James Bible, which set an early standard for the English language, uses the word largely to refer to God’s impartiality in justice. DEI’s “Equity” is the exact opposite of having “no respect of persons” in judgement; instead of equal treatment, the goal is to discriminate by equalizing outcomes with respect to individual situations. Lastly, DEI’s “inclusion” is code for dividing everybody along countless lines of identity excluding the opinions of so-called oppressors from consideration. Truly, this ideology excludes everyone from brotherhood and American unity. DEI is no basis for a healthy society, and its imposition is a grave danger.

Share

For the sake of individual liberty and freedom of thought, students and faculty at our public institutions must not be subject to compulsory ideological training and the enforcement mechanisms surrounding it. Senate Bill 1048 prohibits DEI-based discrimination in admissions and hiring, DEI-related employee incentives, DEI offices and officer positions, diversity training, and bias reporting systems. (This will not affect centers and scholarships for American Indian students.) Also, students may not be forced to enroll in a course designed and implemented with DEI principles unless their chosen course of study is based on these concepts. This does not ban these classes, but students enrolled in everyday degree programs should expect to graduate without having to take them.

Institutions are held accountable via annual reporting to the Attorney General and legislature, along with a private cause of action for injunctive relief, and/or penalties from the AG’s office for failure to comply.

The DEI establishment in Idaho higher education is costly. Not only does administrative ossification of this divisive socialist ideology have a steep social cost, but one analysis found that our universities have 51 DEI-based positions, the elimination of which could save up to $3.8 Million. This legislation will be a welcome redirection from taxpayer-sponsored activism back toward fiscal responsibility and the basic purpose of education: the search for truth.

This is not the first DEI-related legislation which our legislature has considered, but it is by no means redundant. Last year, a thorough bill to address this issue was introduced, S1357, which died in a drawer. For more context, check out this Substack article from last year. Instead of that bill, S1274 was passed, and while it did clarify that hiring and admissions should not be conditioned on the signing of a diversity statement, it was only a start. S1048 is an answer to last year’s unfinished work.

Don’t fall for Division, Exclusion, and Indoctrination. Let’s Raise The Standard together.

In His Service and At Your Service,

Ben Toews

Idaho State Senator – District 4

Subscribe now

Welcome to my first legislative newsletter of 2025! It is an honor to amplify your voice as your District 4 Senator from Coeur d’Alene. This year I am excited to serve in a new role in Senate Leadership as Chair of the Senate Majority Caucus. In this capacity, I will be bringing Republicans in the Senate together around an organized agenda based on shared values. Our priorities include lowering taxes for families, bolstering education options for children, and strengthening border security and the rule of law to make our communities safe. While it is easy to focus on division, I am confident that rallying around what unites the vast majority of us is a recipe for furthering many of my constituents’ top priorities.

My faith-based focus on strengthening Idaho’s families and protecting children remains unchanged. I’ll be standing for these values while serving on the State Affairs committee and Local Government & Taxation.

Here is a selection of future bills I am working on and/or planning to support:

• Eliminating forced DEI from Idaho higher education institutions

• Disentangling the housing market from zoning restrictions which drive up prices and hurt first-time homebuyers

• Prohibiting government entities from purchasing China-made surveillance equipment

• Empowering parents to protect their children on social media

• Recognizing the vital role of the traditional family by designating a month to celebrate, support, and educate on its importance (see last year’s HCR35)

• Empowering individuals with a legal remedy if the government infringes on their freedoms of speech or religion (see last year’s H517)

• Freeing homeschoolers from being forced to pay public-school-related property taxes

• Strengthening protections for Idahoans whose personally identifiable information might be leaked and/or misused

• Ensuring that taxpayer funds are not used to support teachers unions (see last year’s H602)

I am also looking forward to supporting a coming bill which would bring Bible reading back into public education! Not only is God’s word true and profitable for teaching, but it has played a crucial role in forming the political, cultural, and social fabric of our nation throughout its entire history. The proposed legislation aims not to give teachers a pulpit from which to preach their personal opinions on the Bible, but rather to give children simple exposure to its content. Check out this article by Blaine Conzatti for a detailed explanation of the constitutional and historical basis for such a bill.

Subscribe now

I look forward to updating you on the paths of these pieces of legislation as well as others. Subscribe to this newsletter for weekly updates, and feel free to email me at BToews@Senate.Idaho.gov with any feedback or questions!

In His Service and At Your Service,

Ben Toews

Idaho State Senator – District 4

Share

As we head into the final tumultuous days before the 2024 Presidential Election, I want to remind you of a few battles at the state level that are worthy of your attention. It’s easy to look toward the politics at the federal level with uneasiness or even despair. I want to encourage you with some wins we’ve had at the local level along with my own renewed commitment to continue the battle to protect our unalienable rights and champion the values we hold dear as Idahoans. Here are the top state-level topics you need to know about:

Vote “NO” on Proposition 1

On your ballot in the general election you’ll find an initiative to move Idaho to a ranked choice voting system. It would notably include a switch from our simple and effective one-vote-per-citizen system to a complicated and confusing system where voters are forced to rank multiple candidates or risk their ballot being “exhausted” and thrown away. The proposed system is estimated by the Idaho Secretary of State’s Office, to cost taxpayers up to $40 million dollars to implement, making it costly as well. This is an attempt to circumvent the will of the people as expressed in H179, a bill that passed the legislature and was signed into law by Governor Little in 2023. This law prohibits Ranked Choice Voting in Idaho because lawmakers recognized that this voting scheme has already messed up elections in places like California, Maine and Alaska. I encourage you to read more at StopRCV.com and Vote “NO” on Proposition 1.

Share

A Big Win for Conservative Budgeting

During the 2024 session, arguably the biggest battle was over a new budget process which would move Idaho away from an omnibus-style budgeting system. In the status quo, agencies were able to include their wants with their needs in the budget bills, forcing the legislature to vote in an all-or-nothing fashion. After a long and heated battle within the Senate, with the expected behind-the-scenes drama, we succeeded in adopting a more conservative budgeting system where needs would be passed first as “Maintenance budgets” and then requests for expansion would be debated and passed separately. I expect this to be a victory for creating healthy accountability for government agencies where increases are debated on merit, not just pushed through because they are packaged with the essentials.

Supporting the Traditional Family

A major focus I’ve championed since day one of my tenure is working towards building the most fundamental part of our communities - the Family. This session I helped draft and sponsored a resolution, HCR35, to set aside a month from Mother’s Day to Father’s day to celebrate Traditional Family Values. The vision of this movement is to encourage family values in Idaho while bringing awareness to the statistical fact that strong, healthy families inexpensively and effectively solve the vast majority of the issues that the government seeks to fix, including much of the crime and poverty. While the resolution was ultimately drawered after solidly passing the House, I will bring it back in the coming session in January.

Protecting Children

Protecting the innocence of the children of Idaho is at the top of my priority list and I’m glad to report that we made some significant gains in this area. I sponsored H465, which Criminalized AI Child Porn, and H498, the Online Child Safety Act, which gives parents the ability to hold porn companies accountable if they don’t age verify to prevent children from accessing their harmful content. 

Fiscal Conservatism & Lowering Taxes

My ongoing commitment is to fight to lower the costs of government and thereby prevent the burden of increased taxes that harm the families of our community. I sponsored H668, No Public Funds for Gender Transition, which made sure hard-earned tax dollars no longer go toward irreversibly harmful pseudoscience. In addition, I supported H521, which lowered income taxes to give some much-needed relief to the taxpayer. 

I value the trust you’ve put in me to represent our community in the Senate and commit to continue the work by limiting government, protecting citizens’ rights and working to uphold the conservative principles that make Idaho a wonderful place to work, live and raise a family.

Sincerely,

Ben Toews

Idaho State Senator – District 4

Subscribe now

While disseminating material harmful to minors is a misdemeanor in Idaho, a blanket exception protects any “bona fide school, college, university, museum or public library” and its employees from being charged. Currently, schools and libraries in our state can distribute obscene materials to minors without criminal or civil accountability, even when distributing these same materials could get anyone else locked up. Today, many children regularly stumble upon what amounts to pornography in these trusted and taxpayer-funded spaces. This tragedy has been painstakingly documented by a group of community members in Coeur d’Alene. I have personally witnessed the sexualized nature of numerous books provided and promoted in the children’s section of our public libraries, and as a father of five children, I am grieved.

Not only does the Lord strongly condemn twisting the minds of children, but Article III, Section 24 of our Idaho Constitution also clarifies that a core duty of the legislature is to address exactly this. The following is a review of legislative endeavors to protect our children in schools and libraries.

Subscribe now

PREVIOUS YEARS

Two sessions ago, House Resolution 23 (2022) recognized that “material harmful to minors is a contributing factor to crime and juvenile crime and is also a basic factor in impairing the ethical and moral development of our youth” and that Idaho policy must safeguard “Idaho children from exposure to material harmful to minors, as defined in Section 18-1514, Idaho Code, in libraries and K-12 schools.” However, after passing the House, House Bill 666 (2022), which would have removed the blanket liability exception for institutions and their employees, died in committee in the Senate.

The next year, House Bill 139 (2023) marked a new approach to the issue, replacing the possibility of criminal prosecution with a civil cause of action. Parents would have been empowered with the ability to sue a school or library for civil penalties if their children were provided access to harmful materials. A $10,000 sum in statutory damages, in addition to actual damages and other relief to the victim, would have incentivized boards of trustees to take reasonable precautions. Rather than librarians being at risk of prosecution, this focus on the party legally responsible for library policy conforms to the common-law doctrine of Respondeat Superior. The bill also provided an exception regarding works of serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, as defined with reference to contemporary community standards. The library would not be liable if the minor were accompanied by a guardian, clarifying the bill’s scope as not infringing on family sovereignty. Even so, House Bill 139 was drawered in committee before it could be considered on the floor.

By this point, the accusation of ‘book banning’ was being circulated in some circles. This is a serious allegation, bringing to memory Nazi efforts to stifle intellectual freedom and dissent in towering flames. It is an allegation worthy of serious charitable examination. And, after truly doing my best to contort my mind into some configuration in which the statement is reasonable, I have failed. Ensuring that obscenity is not placed in the children’s section of a library and cannot be checked out by minors is completely different from book-banning, which I oppose. Adults remain free to access whichever books they wish. As correctly articulated by Idaho Family Policy Center President Blaine Conzatti, the US Supreme Court has consistently held that “there is no first-amendment right to disseminate obscenity to children, period.”

Meanwhile, House Bill 227 (2023) was offered as a potential replacement for the dead bill, but, while it recommended relevant policy, it provided no enforcement mechanism and would have functioned as a mere suggestion.

Well-formulated strategy by the bill’s sponsors allowed a modified version of House Bill 139, House Bill 314 (2023), to be rerouted through House State Affairs instead of the more resistant House Education committee. This bill decreased the proposed statutory damages to $2,500, among other changes. After passing both chambers of our legislature, it was sent to Governor Little, who vetoed it. Unfortunately, the House failed to override the veto, narrowly falling short of the required two-thirds majority by a single vote.

THE 2024 LEGISLATIVE SESSION

This year, a modified version of House Bill 314, House Bill 384, was introduced. This Children’s School and Library Protection Act would have drastically lowered the statutory damages to $250, only 2.5% of the $10,000 penalty originally proposed in House Bill 139, making it more than abundantly clear that its purpose was not to take money away from our institutions but only to ensure they pass coherent and effective materials selection policies for children’s sections. It also addressed some constitutional concerns by no longer defining whether material is valuable for minors “according to prevailing standards in the adult community.” The sharp decrease in civil penalties felt concerningly lenient to many; even so, the bill was strangely returned to committee to make way for something weaker.

Senate Bill 1221, the School Library Material Care Act, would have required local education agencies to develop and adopt policies regarding materials in school libraries, including the creation of committees to review library materials in meetings open to the public. While the local character of the policy felt a point in its favor to some, it did not reference the definition of material harmful to minors or other concrete standards, there were some accountability concerns, and it did not address public libraries outside of schools. While this bill advanced the conversation, its deficiencies prevented it from garnering the necessary support.

Share

[POST-SESSION UPDATE] Senate Bill 1289 was then introduced as a potential compromise, combining some elements of Senate Bill 1221’s materials review policy with House Bill 384’s private cause of action. While I appreciated the attempt, Senate State Affairs sent it to the floor with a do-pass recommendation without my support. The attempted compromise would have managed to be both ineffective and cumbersome for both the parents and libraries of our community, and I opposed it because I did not believe it would have kept kids safe. The bill would have required that each community and school library have a Library Materials Review Committee to review requests for the relocation of materials. A parent finding a harmful book available to children could request that it be moved, after which the committee would conduct a public hearing on the book and make a reasoned decision, about which the parent could then request reconsideration, and, if still disagreeing with the final decision of the committee, the parent could appeal to the courts for judicial review. If, on the other hand, the committee agreed that a given material was harmful and a parent presented a written notification to the library that they had failed to remove the material and afterward the library again failed to remove the material, the parent would only then have a private cause of action against the library to recover $250 in statutory damages and other applicable damages or relief.

The way those run-on sentences felt to read is the way this policy would have played out in real life. While seeming logical on paper, it would have required parents to expend serious time and money to little effect. Libraries would only have been liable if they actually admitted a book was harmful, and thus would have been able to avoid accountability by simply denying the problem. While there was a provision for judicial review of committee decisions, it was dubiously worded and bureaucratically intense. Many practical, structural, and legal issues with the legislation were well articulated by Senator Herndon on the Senate floor, including that, as supported by comments from the AG’s office, the bill’s provision for judicial review in Idaho Code may have been a dead-end reference if taken literally. Asking parents to play whack-a-mole with a leaden hammer and appointing libraries as judge, jury, and executioner in their own cases rendered the bill effectively a paper tiger. The intense administrative burden it would have put on small libraries and our judicial system also attracted opposition from all sides. Demanding a more effective solution, we voted it down on the Senate floor.

Improvement came in the form of House Bill 710, a slightly-modified version of House Bill 384. It retained the $250 civil cause of action and also required a “readily accessible form allowing a person to request review of material the person considers to be harmful to minors,” displaying the statutory definition of such material for reference. Although the definition was slightly narrowed by the removal of section b, it remained sufficient to protect children. House Bill 710 was passed with a strong majority in both chambers. The governor signed it into law, and it will go into effect July 1, 2024.

After three long years of legislative struggle, we finally got an effective library bill signed into law! The engagement of citizens like you has been integral to this victory. Painstaking documentation by community groups like CleanBooks4Kids opened many skeptical eyes to the severity of the issue, and countless constituent emails lit fires under the seats of reluctant legislators. Alongside such victories as protecting children from pornography and stopping tax dollars from funding gender mutilation, House Bill 710 is yet another win this year in the battle for child innocence and healthy families in Idaho. We are committed to continue the fight. Next session, I plan to reintroduce the drawered resolution celebrating the Traditional Family. In the meantime, please pray for me and my colleagues as we seek to stand in love and boldness for God’s fearful and wonderful design.

Together let’s continue to Raise The Standard.

Sincerely,

Ben Toews

Idaho State Senator – District 4

Share Senator Ben Toews' Substack

Fellow senators, I appreciate the debate; I can honestly say that I think that what we all have in common is a desire for healing.

Senators, healing is a hard word.

We live in a broken world, full of confusion, suffering, and social pressure. This reality is apparent to any person, powerful or weak, calm or anxious, faithful or doubtful. The question is how we choose to respond.

Responding to the brokenness of the world requires humility, compassion, and wisdom. We don’t have enough of these things by ourselves, and it is only by the power of our Creator that healing is truly enabled. The answer to our affliction will not be contrived, because wholeness is given, not manufactured.

Senators, There is an industry out there, though, which seeks to answer the pain of our brothers and sisters with affirmation and by trying to conform the body to another model. There is often some compassion behind these attempts, but compassion only goes so far when it’s not anchored in truth.

The truth is that we have been fearfully and wonderfully created, purposefully, male or female, and no attempts to simulate the contrary of how we were created will provide the purposefulness that we need and desire. The truth is that while cross-sex hormones can simulate secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex, and while healthy organs can be removed and new structures constructed, the wonderful gift of healthy sexual function cannot be created in this way, and these irreversible treatments in reality often lead to lifelong sexual dysfunction, dependency, and sterility. There are so many stories of patients with lifelong open wounds that continually get infected. We have seen how this swiftly-growing multi-billion dollar industry has been so quick to push hormone treatments on our children, severely misrepresent side effects, and make weakly-evidenced claims about suicide rates. Healing is far away from the outcomes of this industry, and we cannot afford to support it.

Authority has a greater responsibility not to endorse pseudoscience and irreversible harm. When a practice is endorsed by authority, we tend to be attuned to its sway. If the government continues to send our tax dollars toward false answers to real questions, we do a terrible disservice to our citizens.

Senators, I am asking for your vote to separate this industry from the scope of our tax dollars.

Healing is possible, but it is not the role of government to do it for us. When it tries, it tends to do a pretty terrible job. Healing happens in relationships, in community, in honesty, and in humility. Healing is the role of God.

Mr. President, Debate is closed.

After these remarks, House Bill 668 passed 26-8! Having previously passed the House, it is on its way to the Governor. This is a sign of hope for our state. Please pray for those struggling with identity, for in the Lord there is always hope.

In His Service,

Ben Toews

Idaho State Senator – District 4

Share

It is important to stand against ideas and processes seeking to undermine the family, but we cannot afford to articulate only negatives; it is also vital to stand directed by Philippians 4:8 as active witnesses to what is good. House Concurrent Resolution 35 seeks to establish a Traditional Family Values Month from Mother’s Day to Father’s day to celebrate the transformative power and beauty of God’s design for the family. The first week is devoted to motherhood; the second to sons, brothers, and uncles; the third to grandparents; the fourth to daughters, sisters, and aunts; and the fifth to fatherhood and the marriage between a man and a woman. The government would not expend any funds or tell people how to celebrate; the hope is for families, organizations, and schools to naturally innovate and plan events together. For some ideas, check out TradFam.org.

Some have called this resolution hateful because it recognizes the unique strength of the traditional family. We absolutely must have compassion for people in suboptimal situations and recognize the achievements of hardworking single mothers, and we can do this while continuing to stand for the ideal. The truth is not hateful; to the contrary, love rejoices in truth.

Having passed the House, HCR 35 is sitting on the desk of the Senate State Affairs Committee awaiting a hearing. If you think this bill should be placed on the agenda, please let your legislators know!

When we linguistically blind ourselves to the beautiful and intricate design of male and female with which we are made, reinventing humanity in our own imagination, it becomes much easier to deny that we are made in the image of God. Recognition of Imago Dei is the only solid bulwark against our tendency to dehumanize one another. The concerted usage of coldly-mechanistic terms like “birthing people” is an affront to the dignity of motherhood and mothers. Our sudden lack of ability to articulate reasons why boys should not be in girls’ showers and locker rooms is patently absurd, and our compliance is undermining the safety of our daughters. It also does not help a society struggling with abdicating fathers to define manhood as either meaningless or oppressive. We have been thrust into a pitched linguistic battle for sanity, safety, and dignity, and we will no longer sit unarmed.

Share

Idaho Code has hundreds of references to the two sexes, written in a time when the meanings were not subject to so much confusion. In today’s environment, however, federal agencies, various jurisdictions, and some courts are defining sex as gender identity. While a true solution to this erosion of reality will only come from the work of God in our hearts and minds, it is clear in the short term that state statute is in desperate need of specific definitions. This will protect women and girls in private spaces and athletics, preserve the coherence of vital statistics records, honor mothers, and otherwise just make sense. House Bill 421 provides these definitions.

As concisely summarized by Representative Young, the bill recognizes that the dividing line between the sexes is that males produce sperm and females produce eggs. For a given individual, this may be happening at present, in the past, or in the future, or it would be so if not for a developmental or genetic anomaly or historical accident. Rare disorders of sexual development are real and are to be intelligently and compassionately taken into account in specific policies, but this bill’s purpose is to lay the groundwork of definitions, not determine specific applications. As for definitions, we live in a fallen world in which sometimes someone is born with only one leg or has to have one amputated, but this in no way changes the fact that humans are bipeds. House Bill 421 puts the definition of male and female into statute and clarifies that these are the two sexes, which are biological. It also defines “Boy” as a minor human male, “Girl” as a minor human female, “Father” as a male parent, and “Mother” as a female parent. Additionally, to avoid the prevalent nonsense of sex being construed as one’s own belief about one’s gender, the bill clarifies that, while gender and sex are synonymous in Idaho Code, this should not be conflated with vague ideas like gender identity, an internal sense of gender, experienced gender, gender expression, or gender role.

House Bill 421 gives us a starting point for clearer conversations on these far-reaching matters. As of this writing, it has passed the House, and I will work toward its progression in Senate State Affairs and on the Senate Floor. Another way you can stand for God’s truth and beauty is by making your voice heard on House Concurrent Resolution 35, which seeks to establish a Traditional Family Values Month to celebrate the transformative power and beauty of God’s design for the family.

Please pray for God’s guidance for our legislators as we finalize the session.

In His Service,

Ben Toews

Idaho State Senator – District 4

Subscribe now

The chaos caused by the Frankfurt School’s promulgation of Marxist Critical Theory throughout our culture is tragically visible even in our beloved State of Idaho. The Long March Through the Institutions has been advancing for well over half a century, and university education was a key battlefront from the beginning. In order to undermine Western Civilization by creating a Victim Coalition of Minorities, the doctrine of Intersectionality has been imposed, defining and then dividing us along axes of victimhood and privilege, drawing support from the conflict and moral decay inherent in Sexual Liberation Ideology. Higher education institutions have now managed to implement political litmus tests and indoctrination seminars as hiring filters and controls on academic thought. Over the ashes of ideals worth preserving, the sign of the hammer and sickle stands in bureaucratic ascendancy over our colleges in the form of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), and D-E-I needs to D-I-E.

Share

The Higher Education Fairness Act (S1357) will serve as a catalyst of its demise. It would ban DEI-based hiring, personnel policies, and administrative reprisals, along with mandatory DEI trainings and activities, political loyalty tests, and other measures exerting control over students as well as faculty. It would also stop your tax dollars from funding the war against our own civilization by barring public funds from supporting DEI offices. For enforcement, the Attorney General would be empowered to pursue writs of mandamus, and affected individuals could also seek injunctive relief. While this bill won’t singlehandedly make our colleges American again, it is a necessary step in the right direction, and more inaction would be a grave mistake.

This legislation has my full support. Join me in encouraging a committee hearing on this bill in Senate State Affairs.

In His Service,

Ben Toews

Idaho State Senator – District 4

Subscribe now

Not only did the mandates constitute a basic violation of individual liberty, but citizens were justified in feeling insulted as well. The CDC which we were told to blindly obey has waffled on the effectiveness of masks. It is easy to get simpler mechanistic studies to say whatever one wants by failing to control for any one of hundreds of variables; however, randomized controlled trials, the gold standard of effectiveness research, clearly indicate that masking doesn’t work. Evidence on a policy scale also shows that mandates don’t work.

Share

The fact that mandates tended to allow masks of very low quality raises questions as to what the actual goal was. The required “coverings” undoubtedly resulted in a moist petri dish on one's face, with the expected consequences. The emotional toll it took on children should have been a consideration along with the impact on their mental health and social development. Avoiding the many cognitive and health issues associated with cortisol levels increased by mask-induced mouth-breathing should also have been considered. The list of severe concerns goes on. Keeping in mind the utter confusion of the whole ordeal, it is understandable that many wondered if this effort to occlude the human face was not below the surface a more fundamental effort to obscure the image of God in which we were made, and the requirement to blindly obey not a precursor to something worse.

Overall, no matter the rationale of various mandates, I have already been given ample evidence not to put too much trust in government, and I also believe that those coercive policies are outside the valid role of government. House Bill 493 addresses the matter by prohibiting government entities from mandating masks (unrelated to existing vocational requirements such as with labor involving hazardous materials). Local jurisdictions retain all powers that would not infringe on the individual’s rights. This legislation has my full support.

In His Service,

Ben Toews

Idaho State Senator – District 4

Subscribe now

This past summer, the two co-chairs of the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee, Senator Grow and Representative Horman, bucked the status quo by formulating a bold new process for crafting budgets. The previous system lacked transparency and required legislators to give a simple up or down vote on the floor for sometimes-bloated budgets. The old method was ill-advised, making it difficult to vote against the swift ballooning of government spending; there was a general understanding that the legislature’s job was to keep the lights on, and being forced to also buy next-gen quantum chandeliers along with the basic bulbs was a foregone casualty. When some especially conservative legislators voted ‘Nay’ on budgets with particularly egregious sections, it was easy for some to incorrectly paint them as trying to dramatically defund, say, the police, or veterans’ services. While those accusations were false, the confusion was exacerbated by a broken system that did not allow amendments on the floor. You should expect to hear a sizable reduction in such claims in the coming years, and it will not be because certain people will have stopped trying to destroy basic state functions; they never actually were!

Share

This new system, far from being ‘omnibus’ as it has been characterized in some media, first passes a group of skinny budgets, enough to maintain each state agency; afterward, any new spending or supplementals, the fat line items, can be voted on separately. This puts a spotlight on matters worth debating, rather than hiding them in a package deal.

Any disturbance in the status quo is bound to find objection, and this effort was no different. An attempt was made in JFAC to suddenly introduce budgets of the old sort which included spending increases, contrary to what had been on the committee agenda that day. While the chaos of this move undermined established principles of communication, healthy political pressure from citizens and a committed contingent of conservative legislators prevailed, and the maintenance budgets made their way to the floor. When the House and Senate finally decided to pass our first maintenance budgets, a new chapter of transparency and accountability commenced. I am committed to continue working with my colleagues to curb the administrative creep of government growth, funding only necessary functions and ensuring efficiency. Your tax dollars belong to you, and I am confident we can translate these new developments into tax cuts in the long run.

Sincerely,

Ben Toews

Idaho State Senator – District 4

Subscribe now

House Bill 415 allows teachers with an enhanced concealed carry license the option to carry a concealed weapon in school. This will make our schools safer, and the alternative is an affront to liberty.

SAFETY

With crime and school shootings on the rise in our country, it is ever more vital we take steps to keep kids safe. Allowing teachers who are properly trained to carry a firearm securely within their clothing if they so choose increases safety. Police understand this, and its coherence is well attested. While the media doesn’t seem to enjoy this fact, armed civilians regularly stop mass shooters! The ‘gun-free zone’ designation is likely counterproductive, and it is time we recognize this reality. What does work is potential attackers being aware that any teacher could be concealing a handgun. After all, there have been no school shootings where teachers are allowed to carry guns. None!

Subscribe now

LIBERTY

Our 2nd Amendment protects the personal right to self-defense and has been incorporated to apply to the states, and Idaho has a special firearm tradition. There is no excuse for abridging this in schools; a right means very little in the face of a litany of exceptions, and indeed, the self-defense principle is as relevant here as anywhere else. Every moment counts in an active shooter scenario; school resource officers and armed guards are often not a viable or full solution, and by the time it takes police to arrive in a crisis, especially in rural areas, a shooter may have had the ability to kill many while unchallenged. Will we force our teachers to hide in corners without recourse? It violates our longstanding legal and social self-defense tradition to render teachers helpless when they would otherwise be willing and able to defend themselves and their students.

OTHER FACTS

I have also heard a misconception that this bill grants a sort of blanket immunity to any teacher who might mishandle a gun. The bill does not do that. Rather, the lack of liability for “deciding to engage or not to engage” is just another way of saying that it is a legally legitimate choice to take up arms against a shooter as well as not to act. This provision would not deny anyone the possibility of legal recourse.

In addition to upholding 2A, the legislation protects teacher privacy. It also doesn’t infringe on property rights, allowing private schools the option to determine their own policies. I am committed to promoting safety in the same breath as liberty, and this is exactly the effect of House Bill 415.

Sincerely,

Ben Toews

Idaho State Senator – District 4

Share

Our kids are pornographically afflicted. A recent representative survey of US teens ages 13-17 found that 73% had watched pornography online, with 58% of respondents having stumbled upon it accidentally. The average age of first exposure was found to be 12. Pornography erodes mental health, especially for kids, contributing to hyper-sexualization, engagement in problematic sexual activity, and difficulty forming or maintaining positive, intimate relationships later on. There are also links to issues with brain development and functioning. One does not need a PhD to witness the grievous effects of kids being systematically introduced, and ultimately addicted, to sexual perversion. Unsurprisingly, platforms seem rather uninterested in combating this, and so it is incumbent upon us to act in defense of our children.

BACKGROUND

In the vein of Article III section 24 of the Idaho Constitution, the misdemeanor of disseminating material harmful to minors was added to Idaho Code in 1972. While at the time the threat came in the form of certain magazines and movies, the rise of the internet in the following decades thwarted the enforceability of the existing language. Fighting to protect the most vulnerable among us from obscenity remains within the valid role of government, and it is time to modernize our laws to do this coherently without infringing on liberty.

Subscribe

AN EFFECTIVE SOLUTION: CONTENT-BASED THIRD-PARTY AGE VERIFICATION

I helped craft a bill called the Online Child Safety Act (H498, formerly H448). This legislation empowers parents of children exposed to pornography online with standing to sue a content provider for a civil remedy, if the perpetrator has failed to take reasonable steps to ensure they are not providing such content to minors. Children are clearly a significant portion of the audience for such websites, lured in by ads, links and pop-ups within the apps they use. It is fair and right to hold platforms accountable for the harm that occurs when they allow kids access, and only tangible accountability will cause them to correct their evil conduct. This is by no means unprecedented; sellers are already fined if they give tobacco products to minors if failing to reasonably verify age, and age verification is also used for online alcohol sales.

This legislation also does not impose a specific age verification protocol. There are many ways to confirm someone is a legal adult, from engaging with commercially-available databases to checking if someone has a valid credit card. In the spirit of free market solutions and self-regulation, companies are free to innovate and seek the most cost-effective protocol that effectively prevents access to children.

Having been drafted with reference to existing successes, this bill does not sit in a vacuum. Montana, Utah, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Virginia have each passed similar bills (with bipartisan support!), and there have been significant results. After Louisiana’s law went into effect, traffic on major platforms reportedly dropped between 80% and 95%. A sizable portion of this was undoubtedly children.

After passing, these bills have withstood court challenges by the adult industry. In Texas, a district court injunction was stayed by the 5th Circuit Court, and in Louisiana and Utah, lawsuits were dismissed in district court. And not only does the private cause of action enforcement mechanism buttress defensibility, but it also aligns with the natural rights of parents by putting them in the driver’s seat to protect their children.

Notably, in the majority of states where this was passed into law, major websites chose to leave them entirely in protest. If not being allowed to expose minors to their harmful and perverted content is disruptive to their business model, that business model needs to change.

Subscribe

ISSUES WITH AN ALTERNATIVE

Another bill has been introduced which has been framed as an alternative to our content-based bill. It is called the Children's Device Protection Act (S1253, formerly S1222), and a flaw with it is first apparent in the name itself. The bill mandates that certain devices activated in the state have pornography filters, but this only applies to smartphones and cellular-capable tablets. This method fails to address the numerous devices used to browse the internet from game systems and TVs to laptop computers.

The device-based filter requirement covers less, and yet it manages to be more cumbersome. Mandating under threat of civil and criminal liability that all tablets and smartphones activated in the state verify age during activation and account setup, enable filters for minor users, allow a password to be established for the filter, notify the user of the device when the filter blocks the device from accessing a website, and provide the user with a password the opportunity to deactivate and reactivate the filter is a large burden on manufacturers who are not the ones causing the actual problem. Not only are device-based filters (rather than app-based or website-based filters) necessarily very complex, but they are also a privacy concern; they would need to watch everything you are doing in order to screen it. Laws that require all adults with devices to verify their age, instead of only the adults who choose to view pornography, are also judicially problematic. The Supreme Court has made it clear that content-based restrictions can only hold up if they are the least restrictive possible, and this approach is not narrowly-tailored enough to be the least restrictive option. HB498 better preserves your liberty and will be more effective at protecting kids while putting the cost and responsibility where it belongs, on the content distributors and publishers.

HOPE

I have been greatly encouraged by the response I’ve heard from my colleagues regarding the Online Child Safety Act, and I’m optimistic that legislation will be passed this session which protects the most innocent and vulnerable in our society.

Please pray for me and my colleagues as we continue the fight to keep kids safe and protect the rights of families. I have faith that God will bless the work He has called me to do here in Boise.

In His Service,

Ben Toews

Idaho State Senator – District 4

Share