What did the Idaho Attorney General say about the 2021 'Quality Education Act' ballot initiative that would have raised income taxes on high earners and corporations to fund K-12 schools?
Plain-English summary
In April 2021, an initiative known as the "Quality Education Act" was filed with the Idaho Secretary of State. It proposed two major changes:
-
Tax: Roll back the recently enacted income-tax reductions in Idaho Code section 63-3024. Reinstate higher individual income tax rates for earners above $250,000 per year, and increase the corporate income tax rate. These higher rates would replace the lower rates the Legislature had just adopted.
-
Education funding: Add a new section to Idaho Code title 33 (Education Code) creating a Quality Education Act fund. The additional revenue from the higher tax rates would flow into that fund and be used for supplemental K-12 funding (teacher compensation, classroom resources, and similar uses).
Under Idaho Code section 34-1809, the AG reviewed the proposed initiative and issued an advisory Certificate of Review. The review focused on legality and form, not policy. Key takeaways from the AG's analysis:
- The initiative was substantively lawful. The Legislature has authority to set income tax rates by statute, and an initiative is a permissible vehicle to amend those rates.
- The dedication of specific tax revenue to a specific fund is permissible under Idaho law, although the AG noted general concerns about implementation, including how the new revenues would interact with the broader budget process and the existing school-funding formula.
- Drafting flags: Some technical issues with how amendments were shown (underlining and strike-through conventions), and questions about how the new fund would be administered, audited, and disbursed.
Following ordinary practice, the AG offered no opinion on policy. The certificate noted only legal issues and form. The petitioner is free to accept the AG's recommendations in whole or in part.
What this means for you
If you are an Idaho voter
The AG's certificate is your most authoritative pre-circulation legal evaluation of an initiative. The certificate confirms the legal mechanics work; it doesn't say the policy is good or bad. Read it for technical confirmation that the initiative does what it says.
For tax-and-education initiatives, the key questions to think about beyond the AG review: how big a revenue change, what does the formula actually do, how will the funds be administered, and what happens if revenue exceeds or falls short of projections.
If you are organizing a tax-and-spend ballot initiative in Idaho
Use this AG analysis as a model for what passes legal muster:
- Tie the new revenue to a specific fund and specific purposes
- Identify which existing statutes you're amending and use proper underline/strike-through conventions
- Address administrative details: who calculates, who audits, who disburses
- Note coordination with existing budget processes
The AG flagged implementation gaps in the original draft. Future drafters can save themselves a round of revisions by addressing administration and coordination explicitly.
If you are an Idaho school district business officer
Watch initiatives like this carefully. The new fund would have flowed supplemental dollars into K-12 finance through a separate channel, on top of the existing constitutional and statutory school-funding formula. That creates implementation questions: what does "supplemental" mean? How does the new fund interact with maintenance-of-effort requirements? What is the disbursement formula?
If a similar initiative passes in the future, district financial planning will need to integrate the new revenue stream alongside the constitutional funding formula.
If you are a tax professional advising Idaho high earners or corporations
The 2021 income tax rate cuts (section 63-3024) are the baseline. Initiatives like this would have reversed them for the highest income tier. Watch the legislative and initiative landscape for similar proposals; high-net-worth tax planning in Idaho needs to track both legislative changes and initiative activity.
If you are a state legislator
The certificate confirms an initiative can amend any statute the Legislature can amend, including tax rates. The Legislature can preempt initiative paths only on subjects expressly outside the initiative's scope under the Idaho Constitution. Tax rate changes are not on that exempt list.
If you want to insulate tax policy from initiative reversal, the lever is constitutional: amend the Idaho Constitution to put tax-rate changes on a different track, not just rely on legislative supermajority rules.
If you are an Idaho employer
Higher individual income tax rates above $250,000 affect executive compensation and equity-grant tax planning for your workforce. Higher corporate rates affect entity choice and out-of-state structuring decisions. Watch initiative activity, not just legislative activity, for tax-rate changes.
Background and statutory framework
Idaho's initiative process is set up by Idaho Code chapter 18 of title 34. The AG's Certificate of Review under Idaho Code section 34-1809 is the first formal legal evaluation of any proposed initiative. The certificate is advisory; the petitioner may accept or reject any recommendation.
Idaho Code section 63-3024 sets individual income tax rates. The Legislature reduced the rates in 2021 (the changes the initiative would have rolled back). Idaho Code section 63-3025 sets corporate income tax rates. Both are at the heart of Idaho's tax structure, alongside the sales tax and various business and property taxes.
Idaho Code title 33 is the Education Code, with school funding distributed through formulas tied to average daily attendance, special education, and various block-grant programs. The Quality Education Act would have added a new section creating a dedicated fund.
The AG's review under section 34-1809 happens within a strict statutory time frame, so the AG flags areas of concern rather than offering exhaustive analysis. Petitioners typically refine their drafts in response.
Common questions
Did this initiative qualify for the ballot?
The signature-gathering requirements in Idaho are demanding (made more demanding by S.B. 1110 in 2021, which the AG also reviewed that spring). This particular initiative did not qualify.
Can a ballot initiative legally change tax rates in Idaho?
Yes. Idaho's initiative power is broad. Tax statutes are not exempted from initiative amendment. Subject to the AG's form and legality review, an initiative can raise (or lower) any tax rate the Legislature can.
What does "dedicating revenue to a fund" actually do?
Statutory dedication directs the new revenue into a separate account for the specified purpose. It can constrain how future legislatures spend the money, but a future Legislature can amend the dedication too. Constitutional dedication (which would require a constitutional amendment, not just an initiative) is more durable.
Did the Legislature respond to this initiative?
The Legislature passed its own tax cuts in 2021 and 2022 in the opposite direction of what the initiative proposed. The legislative-initiative dynamic in Idaho is real: initiatives can move policy in one direction; the Legislature can move it back.
What's the difference between this initiative and the 2018 Medicaid expansion initiative that passed?
Process is the same: certificate of review, signature-gathering, ballot, vote. Substance is different: Medicaid expansion was a federal-program enrollment, this was a state tax change with revenue earmarking. Different policy domain, same procedural mechanics.
Why does the AG flag drafting issues if the initiative is "lawful"?
The certificate of review covers form and substance both. Drafting flaws can affect ballot title preparation, the initiative's legal effect (statutory amendments must show what's added and what's deleted with proper conventions), and post-passage interpretation. Better to fix early.
Citations
- Idaho Code section 34-1809 (Certificate of Review)
- Idaho Code section 63-3024 (individual income tax rates)
- Idaho Code section 63-3025 (corporate income tax rates)
- Idaho Code title 33 (Education Code)
Source
- Landing page: https://www.ag.idaho.gov/office-resources/opinions/
- Original PDF: https://ag.idaho.gov/content/uploads/2021/06/C05262021_Education.pdf
Original opinion text
STATE OF IDAHO
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
LAWRENCE G. WASDEN
May 26, 2021
The Honorable Lawerence Denney
Idaho Secretary of State
Statehouse
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Re:
Certificate of Review
Proposed Initiative Relating to the Quality Education Act
Dear Secretary of State Denney:
An initiative petition was filed with your office on April 29 , 2021 . Pursuant to Idaho
Code section 34-1809, this office has reviewed the petition and prepared the following
advisory comments . Given the strict statutory timeframe within which this office must
review the petition, our review can only isolate areas of concern and cannot provide indepth analysis of each issue that may present problems. Further, under the review
statute, the Attorney General's recommendations are "advisory only." The petitioners are
free to "accept or reject them in whole or in part." This office offers no opinion with regard
to the policy issues raised by the proposed initiative. The opinions expressed in this
review are lim ited to those potentially affecting the legality of the initiative.
BALLOT TITLES
Following the filing of the proposed initiative, this office will prepare short and long
ballot titles. The ballot titles should impartially and succinctly state the purpose of the
measure without being argumentative and without creating prejudice for or against the
measure. While our office prepares titles for the initiative, petitioners may submit
proposed titles for consideration . Any proposed titles should be consistent with the
standard set forth above.
P.O. Box 83720, Boise, Idaho 83720-001 O
Telephone: (208) 334-2400, FAX: (208) 854-8071
Located at 700 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 21 O
Secretary of State Denney
May 26, 2021
Page 2
MATTERS OF SUBSTANTIVE IMPORT
I.
Summary of the Proposed Initiative.
The proposed initiative presents amendments to code sections found in Idaho
Code title 63 (hereinafter "Tax Code") and proposes a new section to be added to Idaho
Code title 33 (hereinafter "Education Code"). The amendments to the Tax Code would
replace the recently adopted changes to Idaho Code section 63-3024 with amendments
to the prior version of Idaho Code section 63-3024, ultimately resulting in an increase on
the individual income tax rate on amounts earned in excess of $250,000 a year and in an
increase on the tax rate on the income earned by corporations. The proposed new
section of the Education Code, along with a further amendment to the Tax Code, creates
and appropriates money to a new "quality education fund." The money for this fund is to
come from tax revenue the State receives as a result of the increased tax rates. Each
section of the initiative will be described in turn.
A.
Section One of the Initiative States the Initiative's Title.
Section one of the initiative states that the initiative shall be referred to as "The
Quality Education Act."
B.
Section Two of the Initiative Proposes an Amendment to Idaho's
Individual Income Tax Rate.
Section two of the initiative proposes an amendment to Idaho Code section 633024, the section of Idaho Code which defines individual income tax rates. However, the
2021 Legislature, through House Bill 380, updated Idaho Code section 63-3024. The
newly adopted legislation reduces the number of brackets from seven to five and makes
changes to the dollar threshold and the tax percentage associated with each respective
bracket. The amendments proposed in the initiative refer to and amend the brackets from
the prior version of Idaho Code section 63-3024.
Section two also contains an amendment to Idaho Code section 63-3024(a) for
adjusting the "new" eighth bracket for inflation. This adjustment mirrors the language
already in statute for adjusting the other brackets for inflation; however, it differs in what
base year is used for the adjustment. Where the other seven brackets are adjusted using
a base year of 1998, the initiative specifies that the base year for the eighth bracket is
2024.
C.
Section Three of the Initiative Proposes an Amendment to Idaho's
Corporate Income Tax Rate.
The third section of the initiative seeks to increase Idaho's corporate income tax
Secretary of State Denney
May 26, 2021
Page 3
rate. This section of code was also amended with House Bill 380 this year with a
retroactive date of January 1, 2021. Under the newly amended law, Idaho Code section
63-3025(1) establishes a tax rate on corporate income of 6.5%. The initiative proposes
amending this rate to 8%.
D.
Section Four of the Initiative Proposes an Amendment to How Income
Tax Revenue is Distributed and Appropriates Tax Revenue to the
Quality Education Fund.
The fourth section of the initiative proposes an amendment to Idaho Code section
63-3067(2). This code section states how tax revenue received by the State is to be
distributed by the Idaho State Tax Commission. As it presently stands, all money, except
for revenue received from the withholding of lottery winnings "received by the state[,] ...
shall be deposited ... and become a part of the general account [fund] under the custody
of the state treasurer." Idaho Code § 63-3067. Revenue received from the withholding
of lottery winnings is to be distributed such that half is deposited in the "public school
income fund" and the other half is used for "county juvenile probation services." Idaho
Code§ 63-3067(1).
Section four proposes to amend this section by adding a second exception for
distributing received revenue. The amendment proposes that the additional revenue
received as a result of increasing the individual income tax rate and corporate income tax
rate should not be distributed to the general account, but should be distributed to a new
fund: the Quality Education Fund.
E.
Section Five of the Initiative Proposes the Creation of a New "Quality
Education Fund."
The fifth section of the initiative proposes that a brand new section be added to the
Education Code. This section, titled "Quality Education Fund-Rulemaking-Definitions,"
proposes the creation of a new continuously appropriated fund that is to be "expended
by" the State Board of Education. Money for this fund is to come from "legislative transfers
or appropriations, from the sales tax account, from the state income tax, the state
franchise tax, and from any other governmental or private sources."
The purpose of the fund is to allow the State to "invest in betterment of public
schools in Idaho[.]" It proposes to achieve this goal by allowing the State Board of
Education to use the money in the Quality Education Fund to:
•
•
•
Reduce class sizes;
Prevent class size increases;
Provide current and adequate classroom materials, such as textbooks and
supplies;
Secretary of State Denney
May 26, 2021
Page4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Provide career technical education;
Provide full-day kindergarten;
Provide art programs;
Provide music programs;
Provide drama programs;
Provide support for English language learners;
Provide enhanced instruction in civics, American history, and government; and
Provide special education services.
In addition to these specifically enumerated actions, the State Board of Education
is also given the open-ended instruction of "including, attracting and retaining highly
qualified teachers" and "attracting and retaining counselors and school psychologists[.]"
The State Board of Education is to achieve this goal by taking actions "including but not
limited to ... providing competitive salaries, offering continuing education opportunities,
and providing support for new educators[.]" The money in the fund expressly may not be
used to "pay superintendents', principals' or other administrators' salaries or other
compensation."
The money in the Quality Education Fund is to be distributed in a manner similar
to the distribution of money held in the School District Building Account. See Idaho Code
§ 33-905(2). The money in the Quality Education Fund is to be distributed from the fund
to school districts and public charter schools "not later than August 31 [.]" The money is
distributed to each school district and public charter school in proportion to their average
daily attendance of the district (or charter school) as compared to the total average daily
state-wide attendance. The distribution section also contains a special provision for
schools of the deaf and the blind. For the purpose of distribution, such schools are treated
as if each were a separate school district.
The Quality Education Fund is intended as a supplement to-and not a
replacement of-the typical "K-12 public school support[.]" The money in the fund is
meant to "augment" the "state's general account appropriation[.]"
Finally, the State Board of Education is tasked with "promulgat[ing] rules to
implement the provisions of this section."
F.
Section Six of the Initiative is a Severability Clause.
The sixth section of the initiative states that the provisions of the initiative are
"severable ... if any provision of [the] initiative ... is ... invalid[.]"
G.
Section Seven of the Initiative States the Effective Date.
The seventh section of the initiative states that the initiative's effective date is
Secretary of State Denney
May 26, 2021
Page 5
January 1, 2023.
II.
Substantive Analysis.
A.
There is a Risk that the Initiative Violates the Single-Subject Rule of
the Idaho Constitution.
Because the initiative seeks to both raise income tax rates and create a new fund
to promote education in Idaho, there is a risk that the initiative violates the single-subject
rule set forth in article Ill, section 16 of Idaho Constitution. That section states:
Every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected
therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title; but if any subject
shall be embraced in an act which shall not be expressed in the title, such
act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be embraced in the
title.
Idaho Const. art. Ill,§ 16. The Idaho Court of Appeals, in interpreting this provision, has
found that a bill (or initiative) may make several changes to law so long as each of the
changes relate back to the same "general subject." Cheney v. Smith, 108 Idaho 209,
210, 697 P.2d 1223, 1224 (Ct. App. 1985), abrogated on other grounds by Beco Constr.
Co. v. J-U-B Eng'rs, Inc., 149 Idaho 294,233 P.3d 1216 (2010). In particular, so long as
all of the portions of the initiative "fall[] within [the] subject" and "are germane to" and "not
incongruous with" the subject, then the initiative does not violate the single-subject rule.
Id.
For the present initiative, there is nothing particularly incongruous about an income
tax rate increase and a new fund for promoting education being put forth in the same
initiative. However, these two policies are also not obviously germane to one another.
The proposed initiative does connect the two policy changes by specifying that any
additional revenue received from the income tax rate increases be used for the promotion
of education in Idaho. However, there is a risk that this connection is not substantial
enough for the initiative to survive if it is challenged in court on the single-subject rule.
See, e.g., Idaho Watersheds Project v. State Bd. of Land Comm'rs, 133 Idaho 55, 60, 982
P.2d 358, 363 (1999) (finding that a constitutional amendment that made two adjustments
related to school endowment land violated a similar single-subject rule controlling
constitutional amendments).
8.
The Initiative Fails to Incorporate the Legislature's Recently Adopted
Changes to Idaho Code Section 63-3024.
The initiative fails to incorporate the Legislature's most recently adopted changes
to Idaho Code section 63-3024. In the 2021 legislative session, the Legislature adopted
Secretary of State Denney
May 26, 2021
Page 6
changes to Idaho Code section 63-3024 reducing the number of tax brackets from seven
to five. See House Bill 380, 66th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess., 2021 Idaho Sess. Laws Ch. 342.
The new legislation also changes the income thresholds and taxing percentages
associated with each bracket. These changes were adopted with a retroactive effective
date of January 1, 2021. kl
Should the initiative pass without incorporating the newly adopted language of
Idaho Code section 63-3024(a), the seven tax brackets and the amendments proposed
thereto referenced in the initiative would replace the more recently adopted five tax
brackets and their respective income thresholds and tax percentages. See State v. Finch,
79 Idaho 275, 280, 315 P.2d 529, 530 (1957).
Additionally, in the 2021 legislative session, the Legislature created a new code
provision, Idaho Code section 63-3026B. See House Bill 317, 66th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess.,
2021 Idaho Sess. Laws Ch. 239. This provision allows partnerships to elect to pay as the
taxpayer at the corporate rate instead of requiring taxpayers to pass tax liability on through
to individuals. This new provision was made retroactive to January 1, 2021. kl
If the initiative passes without addressing the new ability of partnerships to pay tax
directly instead of passing the tax liability through, that class of taxpayers would be
exempt from the distribution requirements set forth in the initiative.
C.
The Initiative Does Not Match the Structure of Idaho Code Section 633067.
In its current form, the structure of Idaho Code section 63-3067 follows this pattern:
(1) the exception to the general distribution of income tax revenue and (2) the general
distribution of the remaining portion of income tax revenue. In its proposed amendment
to Idaho Code section 63-3067, the initiative proposes to add a further exception to the
general distribution of income tax revenue. In doing so, it proposes changing the structure
of Idaho Code section 63-3067 to: (1) an exception to the general distribution, (2) the
general distribution of the remaining portion, and (3) another exception to the general
distribution. The initiative would better match the current statutory structure if it were to
list its proposed exception to the general distribution of income tax revenue immediately
following the first exception to the distribution of the revenue.
D.
The Initiative Overlaps with Other Education Statutes.
Some of what the initiative seeks to accomplish overlaps with statutes that already
exist. Specifically, Idaho Code has provisions addressing the following:
•
•
Managing class size (Idaho Code§ 33-1004(6)(g));
Providing suitable classroom materials, such as textbooks and supplies (Idaho
Secretary of State Denney
May 26, 2021
Page 7
•
•
•
•
Code§ 33-512(3));
Providing career technical education (Idaho Code§§ 33-1635, 33-1002G);
Providing special education services (Idaho Code§ 33-2001 et. seq.);
Providing support to English language learners (Idaho Code§ 33-1617); and
Compensating teachers (Idaho Code§§ 33-1004A through 33-1004J).
Apart from stating that the Quality Education Fund is intended to be a
supplementary source of funding for the State's education system, the initiative does not
address these overlapping provisions. It is unknown how an additional source of revenue
will affect the application of these overlapping provisions.
E.
The Initiative's Provision that the Quality Education Fund Supplement,
and Not Replace, General Account Appropriations May Be Ineffective.
The initiative appears intended to stop the Legislature from offsetting any increase
in education spending due to the Quality Education Fund with a reduction in general
account appropriations; however, this provision may be ineffective. The initiative seeks
an overall increase in education spending in Idaho. To this end, it states that the Quality
Education Fund is to "augment and not replace K-12 public school support[.]" Proposed
Idaho Code § 33-911 (3). It continues by stating that money from the Quality Education
Fund is to be provided in addition to the State's general account appropriation "and not in
place of any part of that appropriation." kl
The difficulty with this provision is in determining whether the money from the
Quality Education Fund takes the place of any part of an appropriation. Appropriations
are made by the Legislature on a year-to-year basis based on detailed reports, budget
requests, and statutory frameworks. See Idaho Code§ 33-1001, et. seq. Each year, the
appropriation is a separate act of the Legislature and not necessarily related to the
appropriation made the year before. It is difficult to compare year-to-year appropriation
amounts and it may be difficult to determine whether any year-to-year decrease in an
appropriation is caused by the Quality Education Fund.
Additionally, the plain language of the initiative may make the supplementary
provision difficult to enforce. Because this provision does not call for any year-to-year
comparison of appropriated amounts, it is possible that the requirements of the provision
are satisfied so long as the Legislature appropriates any amount of revenue from the
general account in addition to the Quality Education Fund.
Ill.
Recommended Revisions, Alterations, Suggestions, and Miscellaneous
Issues.
In addition to the comments already made in this certificate of review, the following
are recommended revisions, alterations, suggestions, and miscellaneous issues for
Secretary of State Denney
May 26, 2021
Page 8
Section 2 of the initiative:
•
It may be helpful to incorporate the most recent version of Idaho Code section
63-3024(a)-specifically, the new tax brackets.
•
In the amendment to the paragraph following the enumeration of the tax bracket
and rates, the initiative states, "the state tax commission shall provide an
adjustment factor for the bracket amount by multiplying the bracket amount by
the percentage (the consumer price index for the calendar year immediately
preceding the calendar year to which the adjusted bracket will apply divided by
the consumer price index for calendar year 2024)." It is unclear whether the
term "percentage" is synonymous with the term "adjustment factor" mentioned
earlier in the sentence. If they are not synonymous, it might be helpful to
include a definition for "adjustment factor." Assuming these two terms are
synonymous, the proposed amendment could be changed as follows: "the state
tax commission shall provide an adjustment factor for the bracket amount by
multiplying the bracket amount by the adjustment factor. The adjustment factor
is calculated by dividing the consumer price index for the calendar year 2024
by the consumer price index for the calendar year immediately preceding the
calendar year to which the adjusted bracket will apply."
The following are recommended revisions,
miscellaneous issues for Section 4 of the initiative:
alterations,
suggestions,
and
•
In the amendment to subsection (2) of Idaho Code section 63-3067, the
initiative includes several clauses.
While the sentence may not be
grammatically incorrect, it could be revised for greater clarity as follows:
"[F]rom each single individual or married individual filing separately reporting
Idaho taxable income" to "[F]rom each single individual or married individual
filing separately and reporting Idaho taxable income" or "[F]rom each single
individual or married individual filing separatelyJ. reporting Idaho taxable
income."
•
In the same paragraph, the amendment uses the phrase "individuals treated as
filing a joint return under section 63-3024(b)." Idaho Code section 63-3024(b)
currently states:
In case a joint return is filed by husband and wife pursuant to the
provisions of section 63-3031, Idaho Code, the tax imposed by this
section shall be twice the tax which would be imposed on one-half
(1/2) of the aggregate Idaho taxable income. For the purposes of
this section, a return of a surviving spouse, as defined in section 2(a)
of the Internal Revenue Code, and a head of household, as defined
Secretary of State Denney
May 26, 2021
Page 9
in section 2(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, shall be treated as a
joint return and the tax imposed shall be twice the tax which would
be imposed on one-half (1/2) of the Idaho taxable income.
(Emphasis added.) It is assumed the intent of the amendment is to include
married individuals filing jointly ("joint return ... filed by husband and wife") as
well as the "surviving spouse" and "head of household" mentioned in the
second sentence of Idaho Code section 63-3024(b). If this assumption is
correct, the language in the amendment should be changed from "individuals
treated as filing a joint return under section 63-3024(b)" to "individuals filing a
joint return or individuals treated as filing a joint return under section 633024(b)."
•
In the same paragraph, the initiative uses the term "as follows:" after which
follows the three proposed distribution practices separated by colons. For
clarity and ease of reading, the drafters may consider separating the three
proposed distribution practices with semicolons, separate lettered paragraphs,
or both. For example:
(a) From each single individual or married individual filing
separately reporting Idaho taxable income that equals or exceeds the
highest tax bracket starting figure, including any inflation adjustment
provided in section 63-3024 (a), Idaho Code, thirty-six percent (36%) of the
section 63-3024, Idaho Code, income tax (net of allowed tax credits and
excluding recapture tax) in excess of the tax adjustment base amount;
(b) From individuals treated as filing a joint return under section 633024(b), Idaho Code, reporting Idaho taxable income that equals or
exceeds two (2) times the highest tax bracket starting figure, including any
inflation adjustment provided in section 63-3024(a), Idaho Code, thirty-six
percent (36%) of the section 63-3024, Idaho Code, income tax (net of
allowed tax credits and excluding recapture tax) in excess of two (2) times
the tax adjustment base amount; and
(c) From corporations, other than S corporations, reporting Idaho
taxable income, thirteen percent (13%) of the section 63-3025 or 63-3025A,
Idaho Code, income or franchise tax (net of allowed tax credits and
excluding recapture tax).
•
The phrase "tax adjustment base amount" is awkwardly defined. Specifically,
the defined phrase is used in the definition of the phrase: "For purposes of
determining the distribution to the education fund, the 'tax adjustment base
amount' means the tax adjustment base amount for the highest tax bracket
contained in section 63-3024(a), Idaho Code." Perhaps use a definition that
avoids using the defined term in the definition. The following definition may
Secretary of State Denney
May 26, 2021
Page 10
capture the intent: "For purposes of determining the distribution to the
education fund, the 'tax adjustment base amount' means the cumulative tax
amount of all proceedings brackets described in the highest tax bracket of
section 63-3024(a), Idaho Code."
•
The initiative does not take into account the recently passed Idaho Code
section 63-30268. Tailoring the language of the initiative to include this
provision may not be too difficult as the intent of section 63-30268 is to tax
partnerships that elect to be treated as the taxpayer as if they were
corporations. The following phrase could be adjusted to accommodate this
legislative change: "and from corporations, other than S corporations, reporting
Idaho taxable income, thirteen percent (13%)" to "and from any entity that has
made the election to be an affected business entity under 63-30268, Idaho
Code, or corporations, other than S corporations that have not made the
election to be an affected business entity under 63-30268, reporting Idaho
taxable income, thirteen percent (13%)."
The following are recommended revisions,
miscellaneous issues for Section 5 of the initiative:
alterations,
suggestions,
and
•
In proposed Idaho Code section 33-911 (1 ), the final sentence lacks an Oxford
comma. That sentence presently states, "providing enhanced instruction in
civics, American history and government[.]" The sentence should be,
"providing enhanced instruction in civics, American history, and government."
•
In proposed Idaho Code section 33-911 (2), the final sentence contains
language that could be ambiguous. That sentence presently states, "Moneys
from the fund shall not be used to pay superintendents', principals', or other
administrators' salaries or other compensation." The phrase "or other
compensation" creates two possible interpretations to this sentence. This
sentence could be interpreted that moneys from the fund shall not be used to
pay either the salaries or other compensation of superintendents, principals, or
other administrators. It is assumed this is the intended interpretation since
proposed Idaho Code section 33-911 ( 1) specifically allows the fund to be used
for compensatory purposes. However, this sentence could also be interpreted
that moneys from the fund shall not be used to pay either (1) superintendents',
principals', or other administrators' salaries, or (2) other compensation. In this
interpretation, the phrase "or other compensation" stands alone and does not
modify the phrase "superintendents', principals', or other administrators'
salaries." In other words, the term "other compensation" would paint a broad
stroke and would inhibit the fund from being used to compensate anyone.
Again, this interpretation contradicts the language in proposed Idaho Code
section 33-911 (1 ). This ambiguity can be remedied by changing the last
Secretary of State Denney
May 26, 2021
Page 11
sentence from "Moneys from the fund shall not be used to pay
superintendents', principals', or other administrators' salaries or other
compensation" to "Moneys from the fund shall not be used to pay the salaries
of, or otherwise compensate, superintendents, principals, and other
administrators."
CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed measure has been reviewed for form, style, and
matters of substantive import. The recommendations set forth above have been
communicated to the Petitioner via a copy of this Certification of Review, deposited in the
U.S. Mail to Ashley Prince, Reclaim Idaho, 1424 S. Loveland St., Boise, ID 83705.
Sincerely,
L
LAWRENCE G. WASDEN
Attorney General
Analysis by:
Adam Warr
Deputy Attorney General