Idaho House passes bill restricting district-paid support for teachers’ union activities after extended debate

The Idaho House of Representatives on Feb. 12, 2025, passed House Bill 98, a measure that bars public school districts from using taxpayer funds to support certain teachers’ union activities, the chamber’s clerk recorded a 40-29 affirmative vote with one member excused from voting.

Supporters said the bill prevents public dollars being used for union political or organizational activities and clarifies that districts should not provide payroll deduction, compensated release time, or district resources for union functions unless exceptions apply. Representative (District 9), the bill sponsor, told colleagues the measure “ensures that no taxpayer dollars is spent on teacher union activities” and noted charter schools would not be affected because they do not have the same union arrangements.

Backers described key provisions as: prohibiting district-initiated payroll deductions for union dues; restricting district-provided access to employees’ personal information for union use; banning compensated release time or district-paid substitutes for teachers engaged in union activities unless the district is reimbursed; and preserving the right of districts to negotiate release time if the district does not pay for it. The sponsor said unions could reimburse districts for release time or teachers could use personal leave.

Opponents argued the bill overreaches into constitutionally protected associational rights and local control of school districts. Multiple representatives said unions provide legally required professional development, grievance representation and cost savings on legal matters; others said some provisions would hamper common local agreements that save districts money. One member objected that the bill’s language was broader than necessary, pointing to the provision that prohibits voluntary payroll deductions and saying that the payroll-deduction restriction “goes too far.” Another member cited the First Amendment and urged leaving details of union arrangements to local school boards.

Members also debated how the bill treats release time and compensation. The sponsor and some supporters said the measure does not ban collective bargaining or the existence of unions; it targets district-funded supports for union activities. Opponents warned the bill singled out teachers and did not apply the same limits to other public-sector employee groups, which they described as a double standard.

On the floor a representative invoked Rule 80 and asked to be excused from voting because of a conflict; the request was granted and recorded in the roll. Following debate, the chamber voted to pass the bill. The House clerk recorded 40 ayes, 29 nays and one member excused from voting on the final passage.

House Bill 98 will now be transmitted to the Idaho Senate for consideration.

Details from the floor debate, including questions about which activities are covered and how local contracts would be treated, were discussed during the bill’s committee hearing and again on the House floor. The sponsor and other members repeatedly noted the bill does not repeal collective-bargaining rights already recognized by Idaho law.