Lower taxes
I strongly oppose Idaho’s outdated, regressive grocery tax, it’s a shameful burden on basic survival, taxing the food we all need to live. Unlike buying a boat, car, or clothes, which we can do without or make last, food is essential; without it, we die in days.
Idaho is one of just four states still taxing groceries, with two already working to phase it out, leaving us and Hawaii as the last holdouts, ours the second-highest rate. This hits poor and working-class families hardest, taking a bigger bite from their slim incomes than from the wealthy, deepening poverty and inequality. Scrapping it now would free up cash for struggling households, stretch their budgets, boost local spending, and drive economic growth. Taxing necessities has no defense; repealing it is a moral must and is the right thing to do.
Fiscal Responsibility & Accountability
The primary responsibility of the Legislative branch is to allocate funds and maintain a balanced budget. There is no question that fiscal matters rank among the most pressing challenges facing Idaho. Excessive government spending, inflation, escalating costs of living, unchecked entitlement programs, overdependence on federal grants, ballooning national deficits, neglect of energy independence, and burdensome regulations on free enterprise, all these factors are converging to precipitate a severe economic crisis.
We are witnessing the erosion of America’s paramount engine of job creation: small businesses, which are vanishing at an alarming rate. Concurrently, large corporations exert unprecedented influence over national and local politics, relentlessly advancing their agendas and consolidating power. This macroeconomic malaise profoundly impacts every Idahoan in our daily lives.
Election Integrity
It is our solemn duty to uphold the Constitution and preserve the republic our Founders envisioned. The Constitution entrusts Congress with overseeing elections under Article I, Section 4. Still, it also empowers states to protect the voting process from fraud and manipulation. Weaknesses in our system, such as extended mail-in voting periods, have opened doors to abuse, as evidenced by the Heritage Foundation’s database documenting proven instances of voter fraud since 1982, many involving absentee ballots.
As citizens, we have the power to ensure the security of our voting process. Restricting voting to Election Day only, with in-person participation, eliminates these risks by ensuring ballots are cast under supervised conditions and reducing opportunities for ballot harvesting or coercion.
Upholding our Constitutions & Individual Liberties
I maintain an unyielding dedication to the United States Constitution as the supreme law of the land, a meticulously crafted framework that operationalizes the profound principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration explains the fundamental purpose of government: to secure the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (the natural outcome of owning property), derived from natural law and entrusted to the consent of the governed.
In contrast, the Constitution delineates the mechanisms by which the federal government fulfills this purpose, establishing a limited republic with enumerated powers, separation of branches, and checks and balances to prevent overreach.
The 1st Amendment
“Without Freedom of Thought There Can Be No Such Thing As Wisdom; And No Such Thing as Public Liberty, Without Freedom of Speech.” – Benjamin Franklin
“In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive.” – Dr. Jordan B. Peterson
“When you have something to say, silence is a lie.” – Dr. Jordan B. Peterson
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a crucial safeguard for core liberties that are essential for a republic. It emphasizes freedom of thought and conscience as bulwarks against governmental overreach. These protections ensure individuals can form beliefs and moral convictions without government interference, a fundamental right that every citizen should be aware of.
The 2nd Amendment
Idaho stands as a constitutional carry state, and I wholeheartedly support this Right. I adamantly oppose any efforts to encroach upon our sacred Right to own, possess, and carry the firearms of our choosing, without permits or restrictions, including Red Flag Laws. Every state has an obligation to grant constitutional carry to all law-abiding citizens, in line with the unyielding vision of our Founders.
The Second Amendment, a cornerstone of American freedoms, has its roots in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. This pivotal moment in history saw Protestant subjects overthrowing the Catholic King James II, who had attempted to disarm them while favoring Catholics with weapons. The subsequent English Bill of Rights, passed in 1689, boldly stated: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence [sic] suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” This historical context underscores the profound significance of the Second Amendment and the Founders’ unwavering commitment to individual rights.
The 10th Amendment – States Rights
I unequivocally support the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment serves as a critical safeguard of federalism, reserving all powers not expressly granted to the federal government to the states or the people within those states. This clause reflects the framers’ deliberate design to distribute authority, preventing the accumulation of power that could foster despotism.
The Tenth Amendment, a cornerstone of our republic, was crafted by the framers to preserve our state sovereignty. It draws on their aversion to centralized control under the British monarchy and the loose confederation of the Articles. As James Madison explained in Federalist No. 45, federal powers are ‘few and defined.’ In contrast, state powers are ‘numerous and indefinite,’ enabling us to address local issues like education and law enforcement with tailored approaches that promote innovation and responsiveness. Thomas Jefferson reinforced this by labeling state governments as ‘the true barriers of our liberty.’
Parental Rights and Family Values
The family, a divine cornerstone of society, is ordained by God as the primary institution for nurturing virtue, faith, and moral character. This sacred influence, as reflected in Scriptures such as Ephesians 6:4, which commands parents to raise children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord, extends from the hearth of the home, shaping communities, schools, institutions, workplaces, and the nation itself. What begins within the family leaves an indelible mark on generations to come.
Regrettably, we have allowed a proliferation of politicians, who are often detached from biblical truths and the sanctity of traditional family values to craft and implement toxic policies at the federal level. These policies, when imposed on our local spheres, have a detrimental effect on our communities and the values we hold dear.
We must fiercely defend parental rights, rooted in the natural law endowed by our Creator and safeguarded by the Constitution. This is not just a duty, but a responsibility we all share, to shield our children from insidious Marxist ideologies, predatory grooming agendas, obscene materials infiltrating schools and libraries, divisive race-baiting tactics, and any curricula designed to indoctrinate rather than educate and equip them for an honorable future.
It is imperative that we have resolute, principled leadership—anchored in faith and the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of powers to states and the people—to resist the alluring financial bribes or coercive pressures from the federal government. Decisions for our children’s welfare must originate in the home, flow into the community, and ascend to the state level, aligning with the constitutional framework of federalism that honors God’s hierarchy of authority starting with the family (Genesis 2:24). This bottom-up approach, not a top-down federal mandate, fulfills our moral imperative as stewards of the innocent, ensuring Idaho’s prosperity through the protection of its youngest and most vulnerable.
We must champion active citizen involvement, drawing our instruction from the biblical call to love our neighbors as ourselves. By supporting one another and forging resilient communities through genuine interactions and a spirit of selfless charity and service, we can make a meaningful difference in our society.
Let us cultivate organic community development by strengthening tight-knit neighborhoods and social ties, always prioritizing compassionate, nurturing settings for the frail and needy, embodying Christ’s example of humility and care for the least among us.
Education Freedom
Education choice is fundamentally an extension of parental rights, rooted in the timeless truth that the family unit predates government and bears the primary responsibility for raising and educating children.
Parents may delegate this duty to schools or other programs. Still, they cannot relinquish it entirely—they remain accountable for the quality and outcomes of their child’s education. Public education systems should bolster this parental authority, not undermine it, by empowering families to select the best learning environment for their children without interference.
The U.S. Constitution grants no authority over education to the federal government, reserving such matters to the states and the people under the Tenth Amendment. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 encouraged states to support common schools by designating land for funding, and Congress even supplied the Bible as the initial textbook for these institutions.
Beyond that, federal involvement stayed minimal until modern times. Idaho’s founders recognized this division of powers; Article IX, Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution mandates that the legislature establish and maintain a general, uniform, and thorough system of public, free common schools to foster an informed citizenry essential for republican governance.
However, the federal government has overstepped its authority through the creation of the U.S. Department of Education in 1979, an entity lacking a constitutional basis that now imposes mandates on Idaho schools, from teacher certification and instructional methods to discipline policies and curriculum standards.
Using federal tax dollars as leverage, the department coerces compliance, often with unfunded requirements that ignore local values and the state’s constitutional obligations. This intrusion has contributed to the decline in public education quality, marked by disruptive student behavior, lowered academic rigor, and the promotion of worldviews that clash with parental and traditional American values.
In Idaho, nearly half of high school graduates entering college require remedial courses in math, reading, or writing, despite earning a dismal 60% cumulative grade per class—highlighting a system that fails to adequately prepare students.
Now more than ever, parents deserve unrestricted education choice to fulfill their duty. Some opt for homeschooling, which is cost-effective but demands significant family commitment; others select public charter schools, online public programs, or private institutions, religious or secular. Yet, private tuition remains unaffordable for most Idaho families.
Parents who choose alternatives still pay property taxes that fund public schools, effectively double-paying while receiving no benefit for their child’s education. Idaho allocates approximately $9,700 per pupil from state funds for K-12 public education in the 2024-2025 school year. If a child leaves the assigned district school, that institution incurs no costs for them.
Thus, the allocated funds should rightfully follow the student to any program the parents deem best, whether homeschool, private, or otherwise. This is not only fair but morally imperative; otherwise, the state compels taxpayers to support systems they may ethically oppose, amounting to coerced participation or outright theft (https://idahofreedom.org/setting-the-education-choice-gold-standard-for-idaho/; https://www.idahoednews.org/news/spelling-it-out-how-public-schools-are-funded/).
True education choice with funding portability would transform the landscape by introducing competition. Schools vying for students and their accompanying $9,700 would innovate to improve academics, behavior management, and alignment with family values, attracting parents based on proven results. Parents could no longer blame a forced assignment for poor outcomes, as their selections would reflect personal accountability. This market-driven approach would elevate all options, ensuring that resources serve children’s needs rather than being constrained by bureaucratic inertia.
I unequivocally support Idaho parents’ absolute right to choose any education program for their children, with state per-pupil funds fully available to cover costs. Public education must aid, not obstruct, this prerogative by equipping students to think critically rather than imposing ideologies. Redirecting funds to follow the child will optimize learning, empower educators to tailor instruction, and create a dynamic system that truly prioritizes individual success and family sovereignty.
All Life Has Value
I maintain an unwavering pro-life stance, grounded in the conviction that every human life possesses intrinsic value, bestowed by divine creation. This perspective reframes the discourse on abortion and related matters, emphasizing the sanctity of life as the foundational, God-given entitlement that underpins all other rights.
The principle of life’s inviolability has permeated legal and cultural frameworks since the Enlightenment, notably articulated by John Locke and subsequently immortalized by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life…” Here, Jefferson invokes the “Creator” as a reference to the Judeo-Christian God or Yahweh (abbreviated out of sacred respect as YHWH. This is the name the Ten Commandments told us not to speak in vain. This abbreviation is known as the tetragrammaton), echoing the Genesis narrative where God forms humanity from dust, establishing a hierarchical bond—a hagiarchy—wherein the divine architect holds supreme authority over His creations, while fostering interdependence among humankind.
This creator-creature dynamic confers absolute sovereignty to the originator. Analogously, a potter who shapes and fires a vessel retains the prerogative to discard it if dissatisfied, unencumbered by external claims or the object’s hypothetical protestations. Similarly, God’s act of creation imparts life to humanity, thereby granting an unassailable right to existence. Absent this right, no subsequent liberties—liberty, pursuit of happiness, or otherwise—could logically persist, as they presuppose a living subject.
Yet, acknowledging humanity’s propensity for transgression, divine jurisprudence incorporates mechanisms for justice. God, as a legislator of moral order, sanctions due process and capital punishment through civil authorities for heinous violations of another’s right to life, such as murder, ensuring accountability without undermining the core sanctity.
Furthermore, humans are fashioned in the imago Dei—the image of God—rendering each individual uniquely valuable, irrespective of intellectual acuity, cognitive impairments, genetic anomalies such as Down Syndrome, or other variations. This egalitarian valuation extends universally, transcending societal hierarchies or utilitarian assessments.
The inception of this value occurs at conception, a juncture affirmed by both scientific inquiry—evidenced by the zygote’s distinct genetic identity and developmental continuum—and biblical precepts, such as those in Psalm 139, which depict divine oversight from the womb’s earliest stages. Although judicial precedents, like Idaho’s heartbeat law, recognize viability around six weeks of gestation, my advocacy continues to safeguard all human life, pre- or post-natal, from its primordial origin onward. In this framework, the pro-life ethos is not merely oppositional. Still, it affirmatively celebrates the profound worth inherent in every soul.
Personal Property
Private property is a natural right vital to human liberty and prosperity. In John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government,” Locke asserted individuals inherently possess rights to life, liberty, and property, rooted in divine self-sufficiency.
Property emerges when one invests labor in unclaimed resources—such as cultivating land or erecting a dwelling—transforming them into sacred possessions. This labor theory posits property as an extension of self-ownership; its denial encroaches on personal freedom and survival. Governments exist to secure these rights, and governments engaging in arbitrary confiscation invite tyranny, fracturing society’s social contract.
The American Founders integrated these tenets into the republic’s foundation, deeming private property the bedrock of ordered liberty and economic autonomy. Thomas Jefferson mirrored Locke in the Declaration of Independence, proclaiming unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—a formulation embracing property as essential to fulfillment. James Madison, in the Federalist Papers, championed a constitutional structure that shields property from factional excesses and state overreach, exemplified by the Fifth Amendment’s mandates of due process and just compensation.
For the Founders, secure property cultivated civic virtue and self-reliance, empowering citizens to advance independently and averting the power consolidations that afflicted monarchies, thereby translating Locke’s ideals into governance.
Both Locke and the Founders viewed private property as fostering societal stability and ethical responsibility. Absent secure ownership, innovation falters due to diminished incentives for labor and investment; conversely, it propels economic growth via voluntary trade and enterprise.
The American framework has historically insulated citizens from collectivist policies that arbitrarily redistribute wealth, favoring equality of opportunity over imposed outcomes. This enduring legacy underscores private property not as a mere economic doctrine but as a defense against authoritarianism, upholding the natural rights central to human dignity.
Medical Freedom
I firmly uphold the principle that no individual should ever face coercion or pressure to undergo any medical treatment or procedure, as this violates the fundamental liberties enshrined in our Constitution and the God-given autonomy over one’s body. This stance extends unequivocally to parental rights, empowering parents to make informed decisions for their children’s health without governmental interference, safeguarding the family unit as the primary authority in such intimate matters.
Informed consent stands as an indispensable pillar of medical ethics, granting each person the right to fully comprehend the risks, benefits, and alternatives of any intervention, while preserving the privacy inherent in those choices. If elected, I will vigorously advocate for legislation to prevent the recurrence of the mandates witnessed during the COVID-19 era, ensuring no one is compelled to choose between submitting to a medical procedure and forfeiting their employment and means of sustenance—a direct affront to personal sovereignty and economic independence.
Attaining authentic medical freedom necessitates severing our dependence on taxpayer-financed government initiatives, which often impose strings that erode local control. Idaho’s Department of Health and Welfare programs rely heavily on federal funding, accounting for approximately 80% of their total budget, with variations from 60% to 90% across specific initiatives such as Medicaid. This overreliance shifts critical health decisions to distant federal bureaucrats rather than Idaho communities.
In earlier times, healthcare flourished through the benevolence of churches, charitable organizations, and private citizens, fostering compassion and efficiency unburdened by bureaucracy. Envision the profound shift if we reinstated a true free market in healthcare, liberating innovation and competition to drive down costs and improve outcomes. By curtailing the $5.5 billion in health and welfare spending, we could alleviate this fiscal strain, empowering individuals and families to prioritize preventive care and personal responsibility, ultimately elevating Idahoans’ overall well-being.
Water Rights
Corporate, federal, and international entities have persistently sought to undermine Idaho’s economic vitality and traditional family structures. Still, their ambitions have escalated to seizing control over our vital natural resources, particularly land and water. If elected, I pledge to exert every constitutional authority to advocate for and advance legislation that safeguards Idaho’s natural assets, with paramount emphasis on land and water sovereignty.
Upholding Idaho’s sovereign authority over its water resources is not just important; it’s imperative. This authority is grounded firmly in the Tenth Amendment, which reserves all powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people. This constitutional provision empowers Idaho to manage its water independently, free from unwarranted federal intrusion, ensuring that local expertise and priorities prevail in resource allocation.
We must approach federal aid tied to water with utmost vigilance, as history demonstrates, such assistance erodes state control, mirroring the incremental federal encroachment on our public lands. Failure to resist conditional federal funding risks surrendering Idaho’s water autonomy, allowing distant bureaucrats to dictate terms that prioritize national agendas over state needs.
Idaho’s ongoing battles exemplify this federal overreach: In the landmark case United States v. Idaho, the federal government challenged state laws on stockwater rights—essential for livestock grazing on public lands—claiming unconstitutionality, but Idaho secured a decisive victory in August 2024 when the federal court rejected these assertions, affirming state prerogatives.
Similarly, the protracted Sackett v. EPA litigation, resolved in 2023, highlighted federal overregulation under the Clean Water Act, where Idaho landowners contested expansive wetland designations that impeded property use; the Supreme Court’s ruling curtailed EPA authority, yet persistent federal actions continue to burden local water management.
Interstate tensions further complicate matters, such as the Bear River Compact with Wyoming and Utah, which has sparked disputes over equitable water allocation amid drought. However, with vigilant negotiation, we can protect Idaho’s downstream interests and ensure equitable distribution.
Additionally, conflicts with Oregon and Washington over the Snake-Columbia River Basin involve competing demands for agricultural irrigation versus salmon habitat restoration, with federal agencies often siding with salmon restoration over Idaho’s farming communities in dam-related policies.
These challenges underscore the need to invoke the Tenth Amendment to fortify Idaho’s position, ensuring that water governance remains a state domain to sustain our agricultural heritage and economic independence. Together, we can build a future where Idaho’s water resources are managed locally, for the benefit of our communities and our state.
Borders and Immigration
A nation’s identity is intricately tied to its borders, language, and culture. When one of these pillars is compromised, the others are at risk, posing a grave threat to the very essence of the country. In recent years, the unchecked flow of illegal immigration has emerged as a pressing concern, jeopardizing both national and local security.
The scale of the issue is staggering, with millions of illegal crossings, including those involving high-level criminals and even suspected terrorists. The crisis is further compounded by the alarming disappearance of around 300,000 unaccompanied children after their release from Border Patrol custody, raising serious concerns about exploitation and human trafficking.
While immigration and border control are federal responsibilities, recent presidents have failed in their duty, allowing unchecked entry and thereby violating their oath of office. This negligence has allowed waves of illegal immigrants to infiltrate our communities, including Idaho, where it has led to spikes in fentanyl distribution and human trafficking, among other local crimes.
For example, Idaho’s fentanyl crisis has worsened, with overdose deaths linked to drugs smuggled across porous borders—nationwide, fentanyl seizures at the southern border exceeded 19,600 pounds in fiscal year 2024, much of it tied to illegal crossings. In Idaho, drug trafficking routes from both southern and northern borders have infiltrated communities, exacerbated the opioid epidemic, and claimed lives. Human trafficking has also surged, with Idaho reporting 276 cases involving 574 victims since tracking began, often intertwined with illegal immigration and other crimes like drug operations.
Securing our borders is essential not just for managing population flow but for shielding communities from these deadly threats. Even though borders are now more secure, this could change with a new federal administration. Suppose the federal government shirks its duty again. In that case, Idaho must step up with its own robust plan to protect residents, including enhanced state border measures (https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/frontline-against-fentanyl; https://www.ag.idaho.gov/newsroom/labrador-letter-how-idaho-is-taking-legal-action-against-illegal-immigration/; https://humantraffickinghotline.org/en/statistics/idaho).
I strongly advocate prosecuting employers who deliberately hire illegal workers, as this practice is both unlawful and deeply immoral. In Idaho, where agriculture relies heavily on labor— with about 43% of farm workers being illegal—some employers exploit these individuals by paying sub-minimum wages and providing deplorable housing. A stark example is Jorgensen Management Inc., an Idaho potato farm, which forced H-2A visa workers from Mexico to accept illegal low wages under threat of deportation, while failing to meet housing safety standards; the U.S. Department of Labor recovered $159,256 in unpaid wages and imposed $25,430 in penalties.
These workers endure slave-like conditions, crammed into subpar accommodations unfit even for animals, with no recourse to complain for fear of arrest and removal. Employers exploit this vulnerability, skimping on maintenance and sanitation, turning the situation into modern-day servitude. For instance, many workers are forced to live in overcrowded, unsanitary housing, often without basic amenities like heating or hot water. While this might keep produce prices low, it forces all consumers to indirectly support this abuse by paying lower grocery bills.
Nationwide, illegal immigration depresses wages for low-skilled native workers by increasing labor supply, with studies showing a 10% rise in immigrant labor correlating to a 4% drop in wages for affected groups, including disproportionate impacts on Black Americans. This not only affects the livelihoods of these workers but also has broader economic implications, as it can lead to increased reliance on social welfare programs and decreased consumer spending in affected communities (https://farmonaut.com/usa/idaho-agriculture-faces-labor-shortages-amid-e-verify-debate; https://www.eastidahonews.com/2022/02/idaho-farm-gave-workers-a-choice-illegal-low-wages-or-deportation-investigation-finds/).
Lava Ridge Wind Project
I oppose the Lava Ridge Wind Project. This project was a proposed large-scale wind farm in southern Idaho’s Magic Valley region, developed by LS Power. LS Power wanted to install up to 241 wind turbines across roughly 57,000 to 104,000 acres of public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), with the potential to generate about 1,000 megawatts of electricity—enough to power around 500,000 homes. The project received final approval from the Biden administration in December 2024. Still, it was canceled by the Trump administration’s Department of the Interior in August 2025, citing legal flaws in the approval process and widespread community backlash.
The main reasons for opposing the project:
- Economic and Energy Policy Issues: The electricity generated would primarily benefit out-of-state users in California and Nevada, not Idahoans. Clearly, we get the shaft on this deal. Wind energy is unreliable, expensive, and overly dependent on foreign manufacturing, particularly from China, with turbines requiring significant taxpayer subsidies while providing intermittent power. Moreover, “green energy” mandates are without a doubt federal overreach.
- Lack of Local Support and Procedural Flaws: I am not alone in my opposition. The project faced near-universal rejection from Idaho’s political leaders, including the entire state legislature, governor, congressional delegation, and county officials. This widespread opposition indicates a lack of local support for the project. Lawsuits were filed by the Idaho Attorney General, alleging violations of federal laws and inadequate consideration of community input. The Biden-era approval was viewed as a rushed, last-minute decision that ignored these voices and bypassed key requirements, such as FAA safety reviews. This controversial approval process further undermines the project’s legitimacy.
- Cultural and Historical Impacts: The project’s proximity to the Minidoka National Historic Site, a former WWII Japanese-American incarceration camp where over 120,000 people were held under Executive Order 9066. The turbines—some as tall as 740 feet and visible from the site—would desecrate this solemn landmark, disrupting its viewshed and undermining efforts to preserve its historical integrity and education.
- Environmental and Wildlife Impacts: Harm to local ecosystems, including disruptions to migratory bird patterns, sage grouse habitats, and other wildlife. The area’s lava rock terrain and canyons are sensitive, and construction and turbine operations would lead to habitat fragmentation, increased wildfire risks from maintenance access roads, and broader ecological damage. Similar wind projects had been rejected elsewhere in Idaho due to comparable environmental issues.
- Aesthetic and Landscape Degradation: The sheer scale of the project would ruin Idaho’s scenic, open vistas. Hundreds of massive turbines would industrialize pristine public lands, turning rural areas into eyesores and diminishing the natural beauty that draws people to the region for recreation and tourism.
- Impacts on Agriculture and Ranching: I am concerned about interference with grazing lands, water resources, and daily ranching and farming operations. The project spanned areas used for livestock and farming, potentially complicating access and increasing costs for those dependent on the land. Additionally, inconsistencies in zoning rules, where strict regulations apply to homebuilding but not to large industrial developments like this.
These same concerns persisted for years, leading to protests, legislative efforts to block it, and ultimately its cancellation. This cancellation is a testament to the success of our opposition efforts and a victory for Idaho’s way of life and sovereignty. The project was an unnecessary intrusion that threatened our local economy, environment, and cultural heritage.
Donate Today
Ready to make a real difference in Idaho’s future?
Your support can help bring bold, principled leadership to our state. Every contribution, big or small, counts
