Idaho House rejects constitutional amendment to remove compulsory attendance and enshrine parental right to direct education

BOISE, Idaho — The Idaho House of Representatives debated a proposed constitutional amendment on Feb. 19 that would remove the state’s existing compulsory-attendance language from Article 9, Section 9 and replace it with language recognizing a parental right to direct a child’s education outside the public school system. The House ultimately rejected House Joint Resolution 1.

The measure’s sponsor, Representative (District 2), framed the proposal as an affirmation of parental authority and a clarification of existing law. On the floor the sponsor said the amendment “does not support educational neglect. We already have laws on the books that take care of this,” and described the change as aligning the Constitution with statutory parental-rights provisions in state code.

Opponents argued that stripping compulsory-attendance language from the Constitution would elevate constitutional text over statutes that require school attendance and could open the door to parents refusing to educate children without an effective legislative remedy. One opponent, Representative (District 7), said removing the compulsory-attendance clause “opens the door for a bad parent to say, ‘I’m following the Constitution’ in how I’m educating my kids,” and warned Idaho could become the only state without compulsory education.

Floor debate also included institutional concerns: critics said the proposed amendment would reduce the legislature’s authority over education policy. Supporters replied that the bill affects attendance language and not the state’s ability to require that enrolled public‑school students attend. The sponsor reiterated the proposal was intended to recognize parents’ authority, not to grant anyone the explicit right to avoid educating children.

On the vote, legislators debated the constitutional threshold: a two‑thirds vote of the entire membership is required to advance a constitutional amendment. A point of order briefly arose during the tally regarding whether the two‑thirds threshold referred to members present or to the full membership; the House Clerk confirmed the requirement is two thirds of the entire body (47 votes). After the roll call, the presiding officer announced the resolution failed and that it would be filed in the office of the chief clerk.

Because this proposal would have altered a constitutional provision, supporters and opponents agreed outcomes would carry long-term legal and policy implications if adopted. The measure failed on the House floor and will not advance from this session.

Votes, floor debate excerpts and proponents’ and opponents’ written materials are on file with the chief clerk.