What did Idaho's AG say about a 2003 ballot initiative requiring all Idaho schools to be funded above the bottom 5% of school districts nationwide?

Plain-English summary

This is the AG's review (under Idaho Code § 34-1809) of a ballot initiative filed June 26, 2003, by Dennis Sonius. The proposed law was a single sentence: "All public school districts in Idaho shall receive funding at a per pupil level greater than that of the lowest five percent (5%) of the public school districts in the entire United States."

Wasden flagged several constitutional defects:

Form. The proposal contained no title or chapter indicating where in the Idaho Code it would be placed.

Contrary to the appropriations and balanced-budget clauses. Idaho Const. art. VII, § 11 mandates a balanced budget. Idaho Const. art. VII, § 13 requires that money expended from the treasury be by appropriations made according to law. The Idaho Supreme Court has long defined "appropriation" as legislative authority to specific officers to pay a specific sum (McConnel v. Gallet, 51 Idaho 386 (1931); Jackson v. Gallet, 39 Idaho 382 (1924); Herrick v. Gallet, 35 Idaho 13 (1922)). Imposing a national-floor funding minimum bypasses the constitutional appropriations process by externally mandating a budget level.

Improper delegation of legislative authority. Idaho Const. art. III, § 1 vests legislative power in the Senate, House, and the people through the initiative process. That legislative power cannot be delegated to any other governmental authority (State v. Nelson, 36 Idaho 713 (1923)). In Idaho Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Roden, 82 Idaho 128 (1960), the Idaho Supreme Court struck down an Idaho statute that conditioned local lender operation on compliance with future federal regulations as an unconstitutional delegation of authority. The same rationale applies here: tying Idaho school funding to a "national floor" determined by school districts in other states delegates Idaho legislative power outside Idaho.

State sovereignty concerns. "The idea of allowing local school districts in other states to drive budget policy in Idaho is anathema to basic concepts of state sovereignty embodied in the Idaho Constitution and the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

Vagueness. The initiative provides no standards of measurement, no compiling entity, no methodology for testing accuracy, and no other operational specifics. The AG concluded the proposal "represents little more than an overly broad policy statement, not a law."

The AG concluded that "[a] court of competent jurisdiction would find all or part of the initiative, if enacted, to be either unconstitutional or unenforceable."

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2003. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

The constitutional analysis (appropriations clause; balanced-budget requirement; non-delegation; state sovereignty) reflects long-standing Idaho doctrine and remains generally applicable. Idaho's school-funding system has been the subject of substantial litigation since 2003 (the Idaho Schools for Equal Educational Opportunity line of cases). Anyone analyzing Idaho school-funding constitutional law today should consult current cases and legislation.

Common questions

Q: Did this initiative make the ballot?
A: This certificate addressed only the legal form of the proposal. The petition did not qualify for the ballot.

Q: Why is "delegating legislative authority" a constitutional problem?
A: Because the Idaho Constitution (art. III, § 1) vests the legislative power of Idaho in the Idaho Senate, House, and Idaho voters. The legislative power cannot be exercised by anyone else, including federal agencies, foreign governments, or school boards in other states. State v. Nelson, 36 Idaho 713 (1923), held that the Idaho Legislature cannot delegate its authority. Idaho Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Roden, 82 Idaho 128 (1960), applied the principle to invalidate an Idaho statute that automatically conformed Idaho law to future federal regulations.

Q: Why can't an initiative bind future legislatures on a budget question?
A: Because initiative legislation is on equal footing with legislation enacted by the Legislature (Westerberg v. Andrus, 114 Idaho 401 (1988)), and the Legislature has constitutional authority to set budgets through the appropriations process (Idaho Const. art. VII, §§ 11, 13). A statutory mandate to fund schools at a particular level conflicts with the Legislature's annual constitutional duty to balance the budget and to make appropriations through specific legislation.

Q: What does the Idaho Constitution require for school funding?
A: Idaho Const. art. IX, § 1 requires the Legislature to "establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools." This is a substantive duty but does not prescribe a specific dollar amount or peg funding to any external benchmark. The Idaho Supreme Court has interpreted this provision in the Idaho Schools for Equal Educational Opportunity (ISEEO) line of cases over the past several decades.

Q: Why is "lowest 5% of school districts in the entire United States" not a workable standard?
A: Because no source defines "school district" uniformly across all 50 states, no entity compiles per-pupil funding for every district every year using a standardized methodology, and the data lags by at least a year or two. Even if a number could be calculated, it would change continuously as other states adjust their school funding. The Legislature would have to set Idaho's budget against a moving target it does not control.

Background and statutory framework

Idaho's initiative power (Idaho Const. art. III, § 1) lets voters propose statutes; Idaho Code § 34-1809 requires the AG to issue a Certificate of Review.

The Idaho Constitution's appropriations and balanced-budget framework is unusually strong: art. VII, § 11 requires the Legislature to balance the budget for each session, and art. VII, § 13 prohibits payment of state money except by appropriation. The Legislature appropriates from the General Fund annually and distributes school funding to districts under the formulas in Idaho Code Title 33, Chapter 8 and following.

Citations and references

Statutes and constitutional provisions: see the list at the top of the file.

Cases:
- In re Common School Dists. Nos. 18 and 21, 52 Idaho 363 (1932) (legislature's plenary authority over school districts)
- McConnel v. Gallet, 51 Idaho 386 (1931) (definition of appropriation)
- Jackson v. Gallet, 39 Idaho 382 (1924)
- Herrick v. Gallet, 35 Idaho 13 (1922)
- Westerberg v. Andrus, 114 Idaho 401 (1988)
- State v. Nelson, 36 Idaho 713 (1923) (non-delegation)
- Idaho Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Roden, 82 Idaho 128 (1960) (federal-conformance struck as delegation)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.idaho.gov/office-resources/opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ag.idaho.gov/content/uploads/2018/04/C072203.pdf

Original opinion text

STATE OF IDAHO
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
LAWRENCE G. WASDEN

July 22, 2003

The Honorable Ben Ysursa
Secretary of State
HAND DELIVERED

Re: Certificate of Review – Initiative to Amend Idaho's School Funding

Dear Secretary of State Ysursa:

An initiative petition was filed with your office on June 26, 2003. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 34-1809, this office has reviewed the petition and has prepared the following advisory comments. It must be stressed that, given the strict statutory time frame in which this office must respond and the complexity of the legal issues raised in this petition, this office's review can only isolate areas of concern and cannot provide in-depth analysis of each issue that may present problems. Further, under the review statute, the Attorney General's recommendations are "advisory only," and the petitioners are free to "accept or reject them in whole or in part."

[The full certificate runs approximately 4 pages, with sections on: Ballot Title; Matters of Substantive Import (the proposed law's full text quoted; The Proposed Initiative Appears Contrary to the Idaho Constitution; Legislative Functions Cannot Be Delegated Elsewhere); and Conclusion. See the linked PDF for the complete text.]

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed measure has been reviewed for form, style and matters of substantive import and that the recommendations set forth above have been communicated to petitioner Dennis Sonius by deposit in the U.S. Mail of a copy of this certificate of review.

Sincerely,

LAWRENCE G. WASDEN
Attorney General

Analysis by:
Brian P. Kane
Deputy Attorney General