Once again Rep. Wendy Horman, the chief proponent for voucher subsidies for private schools, has not spent enough time reading the Idaho Constitution.

Responding to a lawsuit against House Bill 93, which provides $50 million in voucher subsidies to private schools, Horman told the media that she is confident the Idaho Supreme Court will rule against the plaintiffs.

“If constitutionality is their main concern, we welcome that argument and welcome the opportunity to prove how this is constitutional,” according to Idaho Ed News.

Further, she said that if the voucher subsidy is unconstitutional, so is the popular Idaho Launch program. That program provides state funding for students to attend postsecondary education.

Here’s the problem with Horman’s thinking.

She seems to assume that the lawsuit against HB93 is based on a violation of Article 9, Section 5 of the Idaho Constitution which prohibits the state from using taxpayer dollars – or in this case dollars diverted from the state general fund – to pay for religious school tuition. But she is wrong. The lawsuit filed this week is not based upon that prohibition.

Instead, the plaintiff’s lawsuit is based on Article 9, Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution. That section makes it clear that the Legislature’s constitutional mandate is to “establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.”

The lawsuit points out that private schools are not general, uniform, thorough, free, common or open to all students. There is not even a hint in the Constitution that the taxpayers can or must finance any type of education besides Idaho’s public schools.

The plaintiffs include the Committee to Protect and Preserve the Idaho Constitution; Mormon Women for Ethical Government; the Moscow School District; Republican Rep. Stephanie Michelsen of Idaho Falls; Kristine Anderson, mother of students with special needs in the Madison School District;  Marta Hernandez, a member of the Idaho Education Association and educator at Burley Junior High; Alexis Morgan, an Idaho parent; and former Republican State School Superintendent Jerry Evans, who served from 1979 to 1995.

“Using taxpayer funds, House Bill 93 created a governmental system contrary to the constitution that is not general, uniform, thorough, or free,” according to Shawn Tiegs, Superintendent of the Moscow School District, which voted to join the suit at a special meeting this week. “We support ample and appropriate school choice through public charters and other avenues that also protect the rights of every student to receive a quality public education. We must keep the real choice with students and families — not with a private entity or organization that excludes students at taxpayer expense.”

Parent and plaintiff Alexis Morgan’s child was denied admittance to a private religious school on religious grounds. Morgan told a press conference on Wednesday, “I am standing here in defense of public education. Our constitutional framers knew that public education is vital for Idaho to thrive.”

It seems that Rep. Horman does not see that the lawsuit makes the case that the Legislature is not currently meeting its constitutional mandate to adequately fund a “uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.”

As co-chair of the Legislature’s Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee Rep. Horman should know that Idaho ranks last in the country on how much it spends on public education. She should also be aware that there is a backlog of more than $1 billion in public school facility improvements across the state. She has probably read the Legislature’s Office of Performance report that says there is a $82 million funding gap for special needs students. She should also know that most school districts across the state need their property taxpayers to pick up the shortfall caused by the lack of state funding from the Legislature.

Let’s make it clear – the Idaho Constitution does not give local property taxpayers the burden of establishing and funding their public schools. Rather the Constitution gives that mandate to lawmakers like Rep. Horman.

In short, Rep. Horman’s budget committee and the Idaho Legislature are not currently meeting their constitutional mandate to fund our public schools.

Furthermore, the Constitution does not give the Legislature any authority to fund private schools. If the state’s founders favored funding private schools, with zero accountability on how taxpayers’ dollars are spent, they would have clearly addressed it in the Idaho Constitution.

Aside from being unconstitutional, school vouchers are unpopular with the public. In the 2023 legislative session, Rep. Horman opposed House Bill 339, which called for an advisory vote of the people on school vouchers in the 2024 general election. Rep. Mickelsen relates in her affidavit supporting the HB 93 lawsuit that Horman told her at the time that voters would reject vouchers. The 32,336 pleas that Governor Little received from the public this year to veto HB93 speaks volumes.

For the record, here is exactly what the state’s founders wrote in the Idaho 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 can’t get any clearer than that.

Jim Jones is the former chief justice of the Idaho Supreme Court and Rod Gramer is a long-time journalist and public-school advocate