In non-legalese, it’s déjà vu all over again.

On Wednesday, a coalition of private school choice opponents gathered at the Statehouse and accused the Legislature of ignoring the state Constitution — which mandates a common system of free public schools.

It’s a throwback from the 1990s and early 2000s, and a marathon school facilities lawsuit. In this case, opponents accused the Legislature of shirking its constitutional duties by leaving school facilities financing to locals — and the crapshoot of bond issue elections.

And here’s something to remember. In 2005, the Idaho Supreme Court sided with the opponents and against the Legislature.

It’s 20 years later and a different Supreme Court, with a new set of five justices and no holdovers.

Unchanged, however, is Article IX, Section 1 of the Constitution. “The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.”

It’s one of the most frequently cited sentences of the state Constitution — on education, or any other topic. And opponents of House Bill 93, the $50 million private school tax credit law, are pinning their case on this one sentence. And even more narrowly, on a single little word in this sentence: “a,” as in “a general, uniform and thorough” education system.

The plaintiffs say that one little word packs a lot of restrictive punch. The framers of the Idaho Constitution envisioned a single system of public education, and chose words that gave legislators no leeway to create and maintain what the lawsuit labels “a parallel system of private education.”

Says the lawsuit (with emphasis added by the plaintiffs): “Plainly, the Idaho Constitution states that the Legislature’s duty to establish and maintain one system of public education that is general, uniform, thorough, public, free and common. By its very language, the Legislature may not establish and maintain other educational systems outside of this single system. “

Not surprisingly, school choice advocates do not attach the same significance to the word “a” — or the “uniformity clauses” that are commonplace in state constitutions.

“Uniformity clauses were never intended to be a ceiling or limitation on creativity,” Mountain States Policy Center President Chris Cargill wrote in a July 2024 white paper on school choice legal issues. “Instead, they were simply meant to ensure there was a floor.”

And this isn’t an esoteric pillow fight over semantics.

It actually circles back to the essential dispute over private school choice.

A publicly funded system of private education is not only unconstitutional, the plaintiffs say. It presents an existential threat to Idaho’s “public, free common schools,” because it will inevitably siphon more public dollars into a parallel, private education system. “It appears the program’s initial price tag of $50 million is only just the beginning.”

Defenders of HB 93 will likely counter — as they invariably do — that the HB 93 tax credits do not take money out of public schools, and instead inject some much-needed competition into education. Plaintiffs will argue that a single public education system, effectively a monopoly, is constitutionally protected. Defendants will argue that this same monopoly is hopelessly outmoded.

Those are all talking points for that proverbial court of public opinion. The Supreme Court, charged with interpreting the state Constitution, might indeed decide the case by interpreting what the framers meant when they championed “a general, uniform and thorough” system of public education.

The legal arguments certainly were different two decades ago, when a different Supreme Court took up the facilities issue. It wasn’t a question of public schools vs. publicly subsidized private education. It was a question of locally funded public school buildings vs. state-funded facilities. Today, the opponents of HB 93 are accusing the Legislature of overreach; in 2005, opponents alleged legislative underreach, as the state treated aging and crumbling buildings as somebody else’s problem.

It’s still worth noting that, in 2005, the Supreme Court took the language in the Constitution seriously, upholding the ideal of a statewide public education system. The justices delivered a stinging reprimand to the Legislature.

But even at that, it took lawmakers 19 years before they agreed to put serious state money into facilities. House Bill 521 — the landmark education law of 2024 — folded $1.5 billion of state funding into buildings. The Legislature can move very quickly, or excruciatingly slowly, depending on its collective will.

HB 93’s opponents made one thing clear Wednesday. They don’t want to wait around for 19 years. They want the Supreme Court to overturn HB 93 by Jan. 14, the day before the State Tax Commission is scheduled to begin taking applications for the tax credit. If HB 93 remains intact, the credits could go out as early as June.

“When money is distributed, it is usually spent,” the lawsuit argues. “The government is unlikely to recover that money even if the program is determined to be unconstitutional.”

By the same token, private school choice advocates spent years trying to get something through the Legislature — a circuitous course, even in an overwhelmingly red Statehouse. They will want a quick decision from the Supreme Court, albeit for different reasons: They want to start getting $50 million out the door, and on schedule.

So it is déjà vu — in the sense that it is another huge education lawsuit centered on the definition of public education in Idaho. But in this high-profile showdown, neither side is going to be much interested in playing the long game.

Kevin Richert writes a weekly analysis on education policy and education politics. Look for his stories each Thursday.