2026 Idaho Public Policy Survey

Executive Summary

The Eleventh Annual Idaho Public Policy Survey was conducted November 8-17, 2025, and surveyed 1,000 adults who currently live in Idaho. The sample is representative of the state’s population, both geographically and demographically, with a margin of error of +/- 3.1%. The random sample included respondents from 42 of Idaho’s 44 counties, although residents in all counties had the potential of being selected. Responses were slightly weighted to ensure representativeness of Idaho’s demographics. The survey covered a wide variety of topics, including the economy, taxes, elections, education, housing, public lands, energy, and healthcare. GS Strategy Group fielded the survey by cell phone (38%), landline phone (10%), online (40%), and text message (12%).

Key Findings

• Idahoans still believe the state is headed in the right direction (46%), but are far more pessimistic about the state’s economic situation than they were a year ago, with the proportion expecting things to get worse (42%) increasing by 19-points over last year.
• Housing (39%) remains the top budget priority among Idahoans for the third consecutive year, followed by K-12 education (26%), and tax relief (15%).
• About 1-in-5 Idahoans (20%) say they are finding it difficult to get by financially, while about 2-in-5 Idahoans (43%) say they are just getting by. Just over a third (35%) reported living comfortably.
• Idahoans generally expressed support for House Bill 93, the Idaho Parental Choice Tax Credit (56-61%), but were split between preferring to wait and see how the program works before making further changes (36%) and repealing the tax credit (35%).
• Nearly 2-in-5 Idahoans (37%) would describe access to health care in Idaho as difficult. Among these, health care being too expensive, a lack of doctors and specialists, and dealing with insurance were the top three difficulties identified.
• Idahoans are generally supportive (59-61%) of a proposed ballot initiative that would establish a right to make private reproductive health care decisions, including abortion up to fetal viability and in medical emergencies.
• A majority of Idahoans (53%) believe if the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were to increase its presence in Idaho, it would hurt Idaho’s agricultural economy. Most Idahoans (85%) favor a pathway to legal working status for dairy workers and their families who have lived in Idaho for over 10 years and have no criminal record.
• Nearly half of Idahoans (46%) oppose transferring management of federal lands to the State of Idaho, a 4-point decline from the last time this question was asked in 2016.

The Idaho Public Policy Survey polled 1,000 Idahoans representing 42 of Idaho’s 44 counties. 11th Annual Idaho Public Policy Survey

State of Idaho

Each year, we ask Idahoans what they think about the direction the state of Idaho is headed. Idahoans’ assessment this year is very similar to last year’s– 46% say the state is headed in the right direction, a three-point decline compared to last year, while 38% say it is off on the wrong track, a one-point increase. The year-to-year change in both responses falls within the margin of error, indicating little difference. About 16% of Idahoans were not sure.

Do you think things in Idaho are generally headed in the right direction, or do you feel that things are off on the wrong track?

A respondents’ political party significantly impacted their assessment of the state, with Republicans much more likely to have a positive view. Republicans favored right direction (68%) over wrong track (19%) by a 49-point margin, while Democrats mirrored them by answering wrong track (69%) over right direction (22%) by a similar 47-point margin. Independents were more split, favoring wrong track (43%) over right direction (36%) by a seven-point margin.

Respondents who have lived in Idaho for more than 10 years were eight-points more likely to say the state was off on the wrong track compared to those who moved to Idaho within the past 10 years. These new arrivals, conversely, were five-points more likely to say they were unsure of the direction of the state. Interestingly, there was no difference in the proportion of either group that felt the state was headed in the right direction.

Support for the state’s direction was strongest in Northern Idaho (56%) and Southcentral Idaho (51%), where majorities favored its direction. In Eastern Idaho, support was not as pronounced, with right direction (44%) favored by a nine-point margin. Southwest Idaho was more evenly split, with 41% saying right direction and 42% wrong track.

Notably, while last year the assessment of the state’s direction and its economic situation moved in the same direction, this year’s results find Idahoans are decidedly more pessimistic about the economy. When asked about their expectations for the state’s economic conditions over the next two years, 42% expect things to get worse, a 19-point increase compared to last year, while 29% expect things to stay about the same, a similar proportion to last year. Only 25% expect economic conditions to get better, a 19-point decline from last year.

Over the next two years, do you expect the economic condition in Idaho to get better, worse, or stay about the same?

Once again, a respondent’s party affiliation influenced their response, with Republicans more likely to expect things to get better (38%) than Independents (18%) or Democrats (15%). Majorities of Independents (51%) and Democrats (62%) expect the economic situation to get worse, compared to only a quarter of Republicans (24%). Regions of the state also exhibited a minor impact– while worse was the top response in all regions, it was most pronounced in Eastern (45%) and Southwest Idaho (44%) and weakest in Southcentral (39%) and Northern Idaho (36%). Those with higher household incomes were more likely to have a positive outlook, while lower income levels were more likely to expect things to get worse. There was no major difference in assessment based on the length of time one has lived in Idaho.

A new question included in this year’s survey asked, “what the state legislature could do to improve life in Idaho?” This question was open ended, meaning respondents were free to say whatever they liked. Responses were far ranging and there was little overall agreement on what the legislature should do. The most frequent type of response dealt with matters of Politics & Governance (17%) and included responses such as be more/less conservative, calls for less extremism, less government, the institution of term limits, and things of that nature. The second highest category of responses dealt with Growth & Housing (12%) and included statements calling for more housing, limiting growth and the people moving from out-of-state, and support for more agricultural development and building more parks or public spaces.

What could the state legislature do to improve life in Idaho?

Social Issues & Rights (11%) was the third type of response and included calls to legalize marijuana, abortion and women’s health care, helping the homeless, improving veterans’ benefits, and protecting civil rights and diversity. The next category, Education (11%), included calls for a better education system, more funding for schools, helping teachers, and opposition to school voucher programs.

The next category of responses dealt with the Economy & Employment (9%) and included responses such as calls to improve the economy, lower the cost of living, create more jobs, and help small businesses grow. Taxes & Budget (8%) included calls to lower taxes of any kind, eliminate sales tax on groceries, and better budget management. Transportation & Infrastructure (7%) consisted of calls to improve roads and traffic, increase public transportation, and making cities more bicycle and pedestrian friendly.

Healthcare & Public Health (4%) issues was next highest, consisting of calls to fix Medicaid and Medicare, improve overall healthcare in the state, expand coverage of medical facilities, and prioritizing family issues and children’s welfare. This was followed by responses dealing with the Environment (2%), including protecting public lands and prohibiting their sale to developers or out-of-state landowners. Criminal Justice (2%) included calls to stop prosecuting individuals for petty or victimless charges, appeals for less crime, and support for law enforcement.

Finally, Other (3%) included a mix of issues that did not fit with any of the above categories, such as calls to eliminate daylight savings time or stopping chemtrails. The remaining respondents either said “nothing” (2%) or did not provide a response (12%).

With the intense population growth Idaho has experienced over the past several years, there is much interest in whether new arrivals to the state over the past 10 years (23%) are different from longtime residents who have lived here for more than 10 years (77%). The top three states Idaho’s new arrivals hailed from included California (24%), Washington (14%), and Texas (6%). While new arrivals and longtime residents showed no major difference in political party identification – about ~40% of both groups identify as Republicans, ~38% as Independents, and ~15% as Democrats – there was a substantial difference in reported ideology. New arrivals to the state were 10-points more likely to identify as conservative (52%) than longtime residents (42%). Similarly, they were 10-points less likely to identify as liberal (17%) than longtime residents (27%). About a quarter of both groups identified as moderate.

Where do you get most of your news and information from?

Finally, a new question this year asked Idahoans where they get most of their news and information from. The top response was national news outlets, such as CNN or the Wall Street Journal (29%). This was followed by local news stations, like KTVB or KIFI (22%) and social media, like Instagram or TikTok (18%). About 12% reported getting their news from local social media groups on Facebook or NextDoor, while few (6%) said local papers like the Idaho Statesman. The remainder of respondents were unsure (15%).

National news, local news, and social media were the top three responses, in that order, regardless of political party, although Democrats were much more likely to favor national news (43%) than Republicans (24%) or Independents (31%). New arrivals were 10-points more likely to say national news compared to longtime residents, while longtime residents were similarly 10-points more likely to say local news stations.

Respondents saying local news stations were more pronounced in Eastern (28%) and Southwest Idaho (23%) than Northern (16%) or Southcentral Idaho (16%). Local news was also more pronounced among those over the age of 45 (23% or greater). Alternatively, social media usage was highest among those aged 18-29 (36%).

Taxes and Budget

We once again asked Idahoans what should be the top priority for the legislature when considering the state budget, although response options were slightly revised this year to use more generalized language. For the third consecutive year, a housing-related category was the top budget priority, with 39% saying housing affordability. This was followed by K-12 education (26%), tax relief (15%), and transportation and infrastructure (12%), while about 6% said the top priority should be something else.

Which of the following should be the top priority for Idaho’s legislature when considering the state budget in 2026?

Housing affordability was the top response regardless of one’s party identification, although it was more pronounced among Democrats (50%) and Independents (44%) than Republicans (31%). Similarly, K-12 education was consistently the second choice regardless of party, but was again highest among Democrats (31%), followed by Independents (27%), and then Republicans (22%). Tax relief was the third highest response for all parties, but more pronounced among Republicans (21%) and Independents (12%) than Democrats (7%).

Support for housing affordability as the top budget priority was greater in Southwest (43%), Eastern (40%), and Northern Idaho (35%), with it being the top response in all three, compared to Southcentral Idaho (30%), where it was second behind K-12 education. Longtime residents were nine-points more likely to say housing affordability compared to new arrivals, although that was the only difference between the two groups. Support for housing affordability was also more pronounced among those under the age of 40.

If you were to see a form of tax relief in the next year, which type of tax should be reduced to provide the most help to Idahoans during this time?

For the sixth consecutive year, we asked Idahoans, if they were to see a form of tax relief in the next year, which type of tax should be reduced to provide the most help to Idahoans during this time? This year the income tax response option was clarified to refer to state income tax, as it is controlled by the Idaho Legislature while federal income tax is not. Property tax (39%) remains the top response, roughly equal to where it was last year, followed by state income tax (30%), down five-points compared to last year, although that may be attributable to the clarified language. Sales tax (23%) came in third, with its year-to-year shift falling within the margin of error.

Property tax relief was the top choice among Republicans (47%) and Independents (36%), while Democrats most favored state income tax relief (32%). Regionally, property tax was the top choice in Northern (44%), Eastern (41%), and Southwest Idaho (37%), but came in as the second choice in Southcentral Idaho (32%) behind state income tax (33%). Longtime residents (40%) were more likely to favor property tax relief than new arrivals to the state (33%). Renters tended to favor state income tax (38%) or sales tax relief (26%) than property taxes (22%); conversely, homeowners strongly prioritized property tax relief (47%), with state income tax (26%) and sales tax relief (20%) a distant second and third, respectively.

In general, would you say that property taxes in Idaho are too high, too low, or about right?

Also for the sixth consecutive year, we asked Idahoans if property taxes in Idaho are too high, too low, or about right? A majority of Idahoans (52%) say they are too high, down four-point compared to last year, while a little more than a third (35%) say they are about right, up five-points from last year. Very few (2%) say property taxes are too low, which stayed within the margin of error relative to last year.

Southcentral Idaho was the only region of the state to not have a majority answer too high (45%), lagging other regions of the state by approximately six-points. But respondents in this region were seven-points more likely to say they were not sure, suggesting that it is due to a greater level of uncertainty. Longtime residents of the state were seven-points more likely to say too high than new arrivals, although this is the only notable difference between the two groups.

If you were to receive a tax refund from the state of Idaho, which of the following most closely describes what you would do with the money?

Next we asked Idahoans, if they were to receive a tax refund from the state, what would they do with the money? Results were split, with a third saying they would put the money into their savings or investments (33%), just under a third saying they would pay down their debt or credit card (32%), and a little under that amount saying they would spend the money on living expenses (30%). Very few said they would buy themselves something fun (4%).

The top response varied by party identification, with Republicans saying they would put the money into their savings or investments (39%), Independents that they would pay down their debt or credit card (35%), and Democrats that they would spend it on their living expenses (35%). Longtime residents were seven-points more likely to say they would spend the money on living expenses (31%) than new arrivals (24%). Similarly, renters were much more likely to say they would spend their refund on living expenses (40%) than homeowners (25%), who themselves would be more likely to put the money into their savings (37%).

In general, which type of tax structure would you prefer for Idaho?

Some policy proposals have considered achieving property tax relief through an offsetting increase in sales tax. To determine what Idahoans felt on the matter, we asked which type of tax structure they would prefer: lower sales taxes in exchange for higher property taxes or lower property taxes in exchange for higher sales taxes? Just under half (46%) say they would prefer lower property taxes in exchange for higher sales taxes, while a little over a quarter (27%) say they would prefer the reverse. Almost as many Idahoans (27%) were unsure of either option. Republicans had the highest levels of support for lower property taxes (50%), followed by Independents (44%) and Democrats (41%). Alternatively, lower sales tax had the highest support among Democrats (38%), followed by Independents (27%) and Republicans (25%).

If the Idaho state legislature passes laws the require local governments to provide services to the public, how should those services be funded?

Many services that counties and local governments provide are mandated by the state, but these mandates do not always come with funding to ensure their delivery. In these instances, local governments are instead left to stretch their existing budgets further or raise taxes to generate the revenue necessary to fund those services. We asked Idahoans, if the Idaho State Legislature passes laws that require local governments to provide services to the public, how should those services be funded? A majority (56%) said that, in those instances, the state government should provide funding to local governments for those services. A little less than a third (30%) said local governments should fund those services with existing tax revenue, while 14% were not sure. The state providing funding was the top response regardless of political party, although its intensity was much greater among Democrats (66%) and Independents (60%) than Republicans (48%).

Voting and Elections

To measure not only confidence in election results but also the impact of absentee ballot usage on that confidence, we asked a split sample question. Roughly half of the survey’s sample (n=508) was asked “How would you describe your confidence in the accuracy of elections in Idaho?” The other half of the sample (n=492) was provided additional context, “Idaho allows voters to vote in a variety of ways, including by absentee ballot,” before being asked the same question. If responses differ, then it can be attributed to the inclusion of this additional language.

Version A (No Absentee Language): How would you describe your confidence in the accuracy of elections in Idaho (N=508)

Version B (Absentee Language): Idaho allows voters to cast their ballot in a variety of ways, including by absentee ballot. How would you describe your confidence in the accuracy of elections in Idaho? (N=492)

Interestingly, responses to this question did not differ at all with the inclusion of the absentee ballot language: 80% of both halves of the sample said they were confident in the accuracy of Idaho’s elections, while only 12-14% were not confident. There was no major difference in response by party affiliation, regardless of question wording, nor by the length of time one has lived in Idaho. Confidence ranged from 70-90% regardless of age, but was highest among those over the age of 60.

Another split sample question gauged Idahoans level of support for the Idaho Legislature calling for a convention of states for the purpose of proposing a federal amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but changing the subject of the proposed amendment. Half of the sample were asked about a balanced budget amendment while the other half was asked about term limits.

Version A (Balanced Budget): Would you support or oppose the Idaho legislature calling for a convention of states for the purposes of proposing a federal balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution? (N=508)

Version B (Term Limits): Would you support or oppose the Idaho legislature calling for a convention of states for the purposes of proposing a federal term limit amendment to the United States Constitution? (N=492)

While the overall levels of support are similar – 60% support for a balanced budget amendment and 64% support for a term limit amendment – the intensity of that support differed greatly. Only 27% of respondents asked about a balanced budget amendment said they strongly supported calling a convention of states, while 42% of respondents asked about a term limit amendment strongly supported it, a 15-point difference.

While Republican and Democratic levels of support are consistent across both versions of the question, Independents are 10-points less likely to support a balanced budget amendment than a term limit amendment. Regionally, support is strongest in Northern Idaho for both a balanced budget amendment (70%) and term limits (66%). Elsewhere in the state, support for a balanced budget amendment ranges between 52-60%, while for term limits it is between 60-66%. Longtime residents are seven-points more likely to support term limits (65%) than newcomers (58%).

Another split sample question considers a proposed ballot initiative. Two years ago, this survey accurately predicted Idaho voters’ level of approval for a ballot initiative that dealt with primary elections and ranked-choice voting, with levels of support in our survey results and the final vote total a year later falling within the margin of error. In an effort to once again assess Idahoans receptiveness to a proposed ballot initiative, we asked their level of support for a new initiative dealing with reproductive rights, while also testing the impact that the initiative’s title may have on levels of support.

Version A (Initiative Title): In November of 2026, there could be a ballot initiative in front of Idaho voters. It is titled the “Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act.” This Act establishes a right to make private reproductive health care decisions, including abortion up to fetal viability and in medical emergencies. Hearing this would you say you support or oppose this ballot initiative? (N=508)

Version B (No Initiative Title): In November of 2026, there could be a ballot initiative in front of Idaho voters. This Act establishes a right to make private reproductive health care decisions, including abortion up to fetal viability and in medical emergencies. Hearing this would you say you support or oppose this ballot initiative? (N=492)

Half of the sample was asked, “In November of 2026, there could be a ballot initiative in front of Idaho voters. This act establishes a right to make reproductive health care decisions, including abortion up to fetal viability and in medical emergencies. Hearing this, would you say you support or oppose this ballot initiative?” while the other half was given the additional context of “It is titled the “Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act.”

Idahoans’ support is generally high– 61% of respondents supported the initiative if given the proposed name, while 59% of respondents supported it if the name was omitted; this difference is within the margin of error, which suggests that the inclusion of the initiative’s title did not substantially impact levels of support. However, the inclusion of the title did increase the margin of support to oppose by six-points, suggesting it had a slight impact.

Including partisan dynamics indicates that while there is little difference between samples for Republicans (45% with name compared to 47%), 90% of Democrats and 66% of Independents supported the initiative if provided the name, while 94% of Democrats and 60% of Independents supported the initiative if the name was omitted.

While differences between samples were within the margin of error for respondents that view Idaho as being on both the right or wrong track, respondents who believe Idaho is on the wrong track (76% and 74%) were far more likely to support the initiative than those who believe its on the right track (53% and 52%). While differences between samples were again within the margin of error for both new arrivals and longtime residents, longtime residents (64% and 61%) were more likely to support the initiative than new arrivals (49% and 50%). Interestingly, gender differences were minimal; 61% and 56% of men reported supporting the initiative, while 60% and 61% of women supported it.

Housing and Employment

Housing and employment have been strong areas of public concern in Idaho for many years, and surveys from past years show that this concern has been steadily increasing over time. New housing and employment questions were added to this year’s survey to better understand what Idahoans think about these issues.

Every year, we ask survey respondents whether they rent or own their homes. In addition to being useful information itself, this question allows us to understand how perspectives on other questions tend to differ among owners compared to renters, and vice-versa. Results on this question were virtually identical to those from last year: two-thirds of respondents (66%) own their homes, while a little more than a quarter (28%) rent.

Do you currently rent or own your own home?

Renters tend to be younger than homeowners, with 40% of those under the age of 45 renting, compared to 18% of respondents 45 years of age and older. Renters are more likely to have lower incomes: 55% of those earning less than $50,000 annually are renting, compared to 23% of those earning between $50,000 and $100,000, and only 6% of those with incomes above $100,000. This earnings disparity may partially help explain why renters tend to be less positive about Idaho’s direction, with 40% feeling that Idaho is on the right track, compared to 50% of owners.

What is the one main reason you rent instead of own currently? (N=283)

We asked renters (n=283) a new follow-up question this year: what is the main reason they rent instead of own currently? More than half (54%) report that they rent because home prices are too high. A distant second was not having enough saved for a down payment (17%), followed by some other reason (10%), preferring to rent (8%), planning to buy in the next year (5%), and interest rates being too high (5%). The relatively low proportion of renters preferring to rent points to long-standing challenges with housing affordability in the state, which can especially impact lower-income renters.

We also asked homeowners a new question this year: do they agree or disagree with the statement, “I feel financially trapped in my current home.”? Just over a third (35%) agree with this statement (15% strongly, 19% somewhat), while a little less than two-thirds (63%) disagree (41% strongly, 22% somewhat). Respondents from Southwest (38%) and Southcentral (38%) Idaho are more likely to agree than respondents from Northern (30%) and Eastern (31%) Idaho.

Please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statement: “I feel financially trapped in my current home.” (N=658)

Younger respondents, under the age of 45, are more likely to feel trapped (44%) compared to those 45 years and older (29%), while parents and grandparents of children in Idaho K-12 public schools are also more likely (40%) to feel trapped compared to non-grandparents/parents (29%). Interestingly, we do not observe any notable differences by household income – those with incomes below $50,000 a year (38%) are similarly likely to feel trapped compared to those with incomes above $100,000 a year (37%). Those who feel trapped in their homes are more likely to feel pessimistic about Idaho’s economic future, with 49% expecting Idaho’s economy to get worse over the next two years compared to 33% of those who do not feel trapped.

Next, we asked Idahoans which of a set of policies they felt would do the most to help Idaho’s housing affordability. Out of the available options, more than a quarter (27%) prefer lower property taxes, followed by permitting reform (22%) impacting the speed and cost of building, education and workforce training (18%), and zoning reform (17%) impacting what can be built and where.

Which of the following policies do you think would do the most to help Idaho’s housing affordability?

There are some differences in policy preferences across political parties, although every political affiliation shares the same top response. For Republicans, the top two responses are lower property taxes (29%) and permitting reform (27%), while for Democrats, the top two responses are lower property taxes (28%) and education and workforce training (27%). Independents have less clear preferences, with lower property taxes as their top response (24%) and zoning (22%) and permitting (20%) vying for second and third place within the margin of error.

Idahoans under age 45 are more likely to prefer zoning reform (21%) compared to those aged 45 and older (14%). There is no notable difference in preferences between owners and renters, as both groups listed lower property taxes as their most common priority (owners: 26%; renters: 27%).

We also asked Idahoans a question about their financial situation more generally, giving them the option to rate themselves along a spectrum of “finding it difficult to get by”, “just getting by”, and “living comfortably”. A fifth of Idahoans (20%) describe themselves as finding it difficult to get by, while two-fifths (43%) say they are just getting by, and about a third (35%) are living comfortably.

Thinking about you or your family’s financial situations, which would you say best describes it?

Homeowners are notably more likely to describe themselves as living comfortably (44%) than renters (18%), while renters are more likely to say they are finding it difficult to get by (32%) compared to homeowners (14%). Respondents with incomes above $100,000 are most likely to describe themselves as living comfortably (61%) compared to those with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 (34%) and those with incomes below $50,000 (12%).

These disparities point to a sizable proportion of low-income Idahoans and renters who may be facing outsized levels of economic stress. These Idahoans are also more pessimistic about the economic future of Idaho. Respondents who rate themselves as finding it difficult to get by are far more likely to expect Idaho’s economic condition to worsen over the next two years (64%) than those just getting by (43%) and those living comfortably (29%).

Individual financial situations appear to share a pattern with confidence in the accuracy of Idaho elections. Across both versions of our election confidence question, those finding it difficult to get by (68%) were ten points less likely to be somewhat or very confident in elections compared to those just getting by (78%), and twenty-two points less likely than those living comfortably (90%).

Financial Situation by Education Level

Financial situation is also substantially impacted by one’s education level, with the proportion of respondents who report living comfortably steadily rising as education increases – going from 17% of those with a high school education or less report living comfortably, which rises to 27% among those with some college or an Associate’s degree, to 43% among those with a Bachelor’s degree, and finally to 62% of those with some Graduate school or a Graduate degree.

We also asked Idahoans if they would be likely to consider leaving Idaho to live elsewhere if they could afford it personally or professionally. More than half (57%) of respondents say they are unlikely to consider leaving (40% very unlikely, 17% somewhat unlikely), while 41% are likely to consider it (20% very likely, 21% somewhat likely). Respondents from Southwest Idaho are most likely to consider leaving (45%), followed by Northern Idaho (42%), Southcentral Idaho (36%), and Eastern Idaho (34%).

If you could afford it professionally and personally, how likely would you be to consider leaving Idaho to live elsewhere?

Party affiliation exhibits some effect, as Democrats are most likely to consider leaving (55%) compared to Independents (46%) and Republicans (28%), indicating that political tensions could play some role in these responses. Economic situation also appears to play a role. Renters are more likely (47%) to consider leaving than homeowners (37%), and respondents with incomes below $50,000 are more likely to consider leaving (47%) than those with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 (37%) and those with incomes above $100,000 (41%).

Respondents with a graduate degree are more likely to consider leaving (48%) than those with a Bachelor’s degree (39%), Associate’s degree (42%), and high school degree or equivalent (39%). Younger Idahoans, under age 45, are also more likely to consider leaving (50%) than those aged 45 and older (33%). On the other hand, longtime Idaho residents are more likely to consider leaving (43%) than new arrivals to the state (34%).

Continuing our focus on employment and its impact on Idaho’s economy, we asked Idahoans, if U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, were to increase its presence in Idaho do you think it would help or harm Idaho’s agricultural economy? Just over half of respondents (53%) feel that increased ICE presence would harm Idaho’s agricultural economy, while 19% feel that it would help. Another 18% state that it would have no impact. Respondents from Northern Idaho are most likely to expect increased ICE presence to help (30%) compared to Southwest Idaho (18%), Southcentral Idaho (18%), and Eastern Idaho (10%).

If US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, were to increase its presence in Idaho do you think it would help or harm Idaho’s agricultural economy?

There is a strong partisan effect on respondent feelings about ICE presence in Idaho. Democrats are more likely to expect it to harm the agricultural economy (88%), followed by Independents (64%), while Republicans are notably less concerned about harm (27%). High-earning households earning more than $100,000 a year are most likely to expect increased ICE presence to help (29%) compared to those earning between $50,000-$100,000 (16%) and those earning less than $50,000 (16%).

Finally, we asked Idahoans if they would favor or oppose a pathway to legal working status for dairy workers and their families who have lived in Idaho for over 10 years and have no criminal record. Support was very strong, with 85% of Idahoans supporting such a pathway (56% strongly, 29% somewhat), while only 9% are opposed (6% strongly, 3% somewhat). Idahoans from Southwest Idaho are most likely to support this idea (87%), followed by Eastern Idaho (85%), Southcentral Idaho (83%) and Northern Idaho (82%). Democrat respondents are more likely to support a pathway to legal working status (95%), although levels of support remain high among Independents (88%) and Republicans (79%).

Would you favor or oppose a pathway to legal working status for dairy workers and their families who have lived in Idaho for over 10 years and have no criminal record?

Education

Education has long remained a top priority for Idahoans when it comes to state spending and policy. Each year, we ask Idahoans to rate the quality of education in Idaho’s K-12 public schools, both statewide and in their own district, using a scale of excellent, good, fair, or poor. This year, a combined 35% of Idahoans rate Idaho’s K-12 education as excellent (7%) or good (27%), while a combined 58% rate it as fair (36%) or poor (22%). Excellent/good rankings have increased by four-points over last year, primarily driven by a four-point increase in excellent rankings. Apart from this difference, all other responses fall within the margin of error compared to last year.

How would you rate the quality of education in Idaho’s K-12 public schools?

Parents and grandparents with children in Idaho K-12 schools are consistently more likely to rate Idaho’s education system positively, and this year was no exception. Just under half (44%) of parents and grandparents rate Idaho’s K-12 education excellent/good, compared to 27% of others. Respondents from Northern Idaho are most likely to say excellent/good (45%) compared to those from Southwest Idaho (32%), Southcentral Idaho (31%), and Eastern Idaho (31%). Republicans were also most likely to say excellent/good (49%) compared to Independents (26%) and Democrats (24%).

High-earning households, earning more than $100,000 a year, are most positive about Idaho education, with 39% rating it as excellent/good, compared to 36% of those with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 and 28% of those with incomes below $50,000 a year.

We next asked Idahoans the same question, but specifically about their own school districts. As in previous years, respondents tend to be more positive about their own districts than about education in general. A combined 43% rate their own school districts as excellent (10%) or good (33%), while a combined 47% rate their districts as fair (30%) or poor (17%). These responses all fall within the margin of error from last year, marking no significant changes.

And thinking specifically about your school district, how would you rate the quality of K-12 public schools in your area?

As with education in general, parents and grandparents of children in Idaho K-12 public schools are more likely to view their own school districts more favorably (51% excellent/good) than others (36% excellent/good). Respondents from Northern Idaho also remain most favorable when talking about their own districts (51% excellent/good) compared to those from Southwest Idaho (43%), Eastern Idaho (38%), and Southcentral Idaho (36%).

Party differences are also evident. Republicans are, again, more positive about the quality of their school districts (52% excellent/good) compared to Independents (38%) and Democrats (36%). Those earning more than $100,000 a year were again more likely to say excellent/good (50%) than those earning between $50,000 and $100,000 a year (44%) and those earning less than $50,000 (35%).

We ended our education section with two questions on Idaho’s recently enacted legislation that established a tax credit that could, among other things, be used to help pay for private and religious schools. The first question was a split sample question, with half of respondents receiving one version of the question, and the other half receiving a slightly different version. In this case, the name of the legislation was alternated, with half of the sample being given the title of the legislation (Idaho Parental Choice Tax Credit) and the other half being given the legislation’s bill number (House Bill 93).

Version A (Idaho Parental Choice Tax Credit): In 2025, the Idaho legislature passed the Idaho Parental Choice Tax Credit. This bill provides up to $5,000 per student in refundable tax credits for qualified K-12 educational expenses including, but not limited to, tuition at private and religious schools. Funding for this bill is capped at $50 million. Hearing this, would you say you support or oppose this bill? (N=508)

Version B (House Bill 93): In 2025, the Idaho legislature passed House Bill 93. This bill provides up to $5,000 per student in refundable tax credits for qualified K-12 educational expenses including, but not limited to, tuition at private and religious schools. Funding for this bill is capped at $50 million. Hearing this, would you say you support or oppose this bill? (N=492)

Once again, the split sample was used to test if the language used to name the bill would influence respondent attitudes. We find that support for the bill using the Idaho Parental Choice Tax Credit is 56% (26% strongly, 29% somewhat) while support using House Bill 93 is 61% (28% strongly, 33% somewhat). This difference falls outside of our survey margin of error, meaning that support was measurably higher under the version that used House Bill 93 as its title.

Across both versions, support is highest among Republicans (69% using the title, 72% using the bill number), followed by Independents (49% with the title, 54% using the bill number) and Democrats (41% using the title, 45% using the bill number). Parents and grandparents of children in Idaho K-12 schools are also more supportive (60% and 70%, respectively) than others (52% and 54%). Households earning less than $50,000 a year are less likely to show support, but only under the version using House Bill 93 as the title (55% using the title, 57% using the bill number), compared to those with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 (57%, 65%) and those with incomes above $100,000 a year (56%, 65%).

Finally, we asked a follow-up question about whether respondents would prefer to see this tax credit be repealed, stay as is, or expand beyond the current $50 million funding cap. A little more than a third (36%) said they would prefer to keep the credit as is to see how it works before making changes, while a similar proportion (35%) would prefer to repeal the tax credit and reinvest the money into public education. Another fifth (21%) would expand the tax credit beyond $50 million to make it available to more families.

There is already discussion of changes and updates to this policy in the upcoming legislative session. Based on what you know, which would you prefer?

Republicans most favored keeping the tax credit as is (47%), while Independents (39%) and Democrats (53%) most favored repealing the tax credit. Similar numbers of Republicans (21%), Independents (21%) and Democrats (23%) support expanding the tax credit. Among Idahoans who express support for the tax credit across both versions of the split-sample question above, 52% prefer to keep the tax credit as is, while 30% prefer to expand it beyond $50 million.

Healthcare

Healthcare remains a major concern among Idahoans. To explore its impact, we began by asking respondents how they obtain their current health insurance coverage (or, if they have more than one, how they obtain most of their coverage).

How do you obtain your current health insurance coverage? If you have more than one, please tell me the option that provides most of your coverage.

The plurality of respondents obtains healthcare insurance through their or their spouse’s employer (45%), although Medicaid (12%), Medicare (17%), and direct purchase from an insurance company or an exchange (12%) are also common. Few respondents obtained insurance through the Military or Veterans benefits (4%), or were uninsured (7%).

Healthcare insurance dynamics differ between parties, as well. While the rate of obtaining healthcare insurance from one’s employer was identical for Republicans (43%) and Democrats (43%) and within the margin of error for uninsured (7% compared to 4%), Republicans were more likely to purchase from an insurance exchange (15% compared to 8%), while Democrats were more likely to rely on Medicaid (14% compared to 9%) or Medicare (27% compared to 18%). Additionally, those who believed Idaho was on the right track were more likely to purchase directly from an insurance company or exchange (17% compared to 9%) and were less likely to rely on Medicaid (8% compared to 16%).

Some regional variations also emerge across the state. For instance, respondents in Southwestern Idaho were most likely to rely on insurance through their employer (47%) than other regions (Northern, 44%; Southcentral, 40%; Eastern, 44%). Additionally, Northern Idaho was more likely to purchase insurance directly or through exchanges (16%) than those in other regions (Southwestern,12%; Southcentral, 11%; Eastern, 11%). Compared to long-time residents, new arrivals to the state  are more likely to obtain insurance from their employers (49% compared to 44%) and less likely to rely on direct purchases (9% compared to 13%) or Medicare (13% compared to 19%).

How would you describe access to health care in Idaho?

Next, we asked how respondents would describe access to healthcare in Idaho. This slightly reconfigures the question we asked last year, where it focused on describing access to healthcare for most Idahoans.

Using the new access to healthcare configuration, more than half (58%) of Idahoans describe access to healthcare in the state as easy, with 39% saying it is somewhat easy and 19% saying it is very easy. Comparatively, 37% say access to healthcare is difficult – 25% somewhat difficult and 12% very difficult. The remaining 5% are unsure.

Perceptions of access vary significantly by political affiliation, with more Democrats (50%) saying healthcare access is very or somewhat difficult to access, compared to Independents (46%) and Republicans (24%)—a 24-point partisan gap. Additionally, respondents who believe Idaho is headed in the wrong direction were far more likely to report difficulty in accessing healthcare (54%) than those who believe Idaho is on the right track (24%).

How respondents obtained healthcare insurance also impacted their perceptions of access. 39% of those who received insurance through their employer and 42% Medicaid recipients reported access was difficult, compared to 30% of respondents who purchased through an exchange or directly from an insurance company, 35% of Medicaid recipients, and 30% of those receiving insurance through the military.

Notably, there is little variation between new arrivals (34% report difficulty accessing healthcare) and longtime residents (38%), as well as across regions (37% of Eastern Idahoans report difficulty in accessing healthcare, compared to 37% of Southwest Idaho, 38% of Northern Idaho, and 41% of Southcentral Idaho).

While 38% of white and 28% of Latino/Hispanic respondents report difficulty in accessing healthcare, 48% of all other races report difficulty. Women (40%) were also more likely to report difficulty in accessing healthcare compared to men (34%).

What is the main challenge to accessing health care in Idaho? (N=377)

Respondents who said healthcare access was difficult (n=377) were given a follow-up question asking them to identify what the main challenge to accessing healthcare in Idaho was. These respondents were split on their views. Of those who reported that accessing healthcare in Idaho was somewhat or very difficult, more than half reported it being too expensive (36%) or the lack of doctors and specialists (28%) as the main challenge. Fewer Idahoans reported dealing with insurance (17%), the state’s laws and regulations (8%), or distance from a hospital or clinic (5%) as a challenge. An anomaly here are respondents receiving insurance through the military who were more likely than other groups to report dealing with insurance as a main challenge (38%) and less likely to report it being too expensive (16%). Medicare recipients were also less likely to report expense as a challenge (24%), and those on Medicaid were less likely to report a lack of doctors (20%).

Challenges to access varied by partisan affiliation though. A much higher proportion of Republicans reported dealing with insurance as a challenge (19%) compared to Democrats (10%), while a higher portion of Democrats (34%) reported lack of doctors as a challenge as compared to Republicans (28%). Additionally, respondents who believed Idaho was headed in the right direction were more likely to report dealing with insurance as a challenge (24%) compared to those who thought Idaho was on the wrong track (10%), while those who thought Idaho was on the wrong track were more likely to report lack of doctors (33%) as a challenge than those who thought Idaho was headed in the right direction (26%).

Longtime Idaho residents were more likely to report dealing with insurance as a challenge (18%) as compared to new arrivals (13%), while new arrivals (32%) were more likely to report lack of doctors as a challenge as compared to longtime residents (27%).

Regional variations were pronounced. Lack of doctors was reported as more of a challenge in Southwest Idaho (35%) as compared to Northern (26%), Southcentral (25%), and Eastern (19%) Idaho. Respondents in Northern (31%) Idaho were least likely to report expense as a challenge, while those in Eastern (42%) Idaho were most likely to do so. In contrast, Northern (19%) and Eastern (23%) Idaho respondents reported dealing with insurance as a more of a challenge than Southwest (13%) or Southcentral (13%) Idahoans. Additionally, Northern Idaho (13%) respondents were far more likely to report state laws and regulations as a challenge for access compared to other regions (7% in Southwest, 9% in Southcentral, and 5% in Eastern).

Finally, female respondents were more likely to report lack of doctors (30%) and dealing with insurance (19%) as a challenge compared to men (25% and 13% respectively), while male respondents were more likely to report it being too expensive as a challenge (41%) compared to female respondents (33%).

Public Lands & Energy

Policies regarding the management of public lands in Idaho and any potential transfer of responsibility from the federal government to the state have long been a concern. We asked Idahoans about this very issue in our 1st Annual Idaho Public Policy Survey in 2016. In order to see how Idahoans’ opinions have changed over the past 11 years, we asked the same question again: Currently, the federal government owns or manages over 60% of land in Idaho. Transferring management of those lands to the state government in Idaho could potentially cost the state millions per year in taxpayer dollars.  Knowing this, would you support or oppose transferring land owned by the federal government to the state government for management?

Currently, the federal government owns or manages over 60% of land in Idaho. Transferring management of those lands to the state government in Idaho could potentially cost the state millions per year in taxpayer dollars. Knowing this, would you support or oppose transferring land owned by the federal government to the state government for management?

There was not an overwhelming consensus on whether to transfer land owned by the federal government to the state of Idaho; 46% of respondents opposed this proposal, down four-points from 2016, while 35% supported it, also down four-points from 2016; 18% were unsure, an increase of eight-points. In short, the relative margin of support to opposition is unchanged, but there is much greater uncertainty now than there was 11 years ago.

Party affiliation played some role in shaping public attitudes towards public land ownership. A majority of Democrats (53%) oppose any proposed land transfer, compared to 40% of Republicans; 15% of Republicans and 17% of Democrats were unsure. Additionally, respondents that believe Idaho was on the wrong track were far more likely to oppose this proposal (60%) than those who thought Idaho was headed in the right direction (37%); 16% of both were not sure.

There were pronounced regional differences between Northern Idaho and the rest of the state. Specifically, 47% of Northern Idaho respondents supported this proposal, compared to 32% of Southwestern, 33% of Southcentral, and 32% of Eastern Idahoans, indicating Northern Idaho is a substantial outlier on this issue. Differences between new arrivals and longtime residents were within margins of error for the survey, indicating no generalizable difference between the two groups.

Which of the following should the state of Idaho prioritize in its management of public lands?

When asked what the state of Idaho should prioritize in its management of public lands, Idahoans were split. Just under a third (30%) believe public access (e.g., camping hunting) should be the top priority, while 27% favor should ecosystem health (e.g., forest management), 25% believe it should be preservation (e.g., preventing development), and 11% believe it should be used for revenue generation (e.g., mining); 7% of respondents were not sure.

Respondents were again split by partisan affiliation. Republicans were more likely to favor public access (30%) and revenue generation (16%) compared to Democrats (27% and 7%, respectively). In contrast, Democrats were more likely to favor preservation (35%) and ecosystem health (29%), compared to Republicans (22% and 24%, respectively). The largest partisan gaps were for revenue generation (nine-points) and preservation (13-points), indicating the divergence of philosophies on governing public lands. Additionally, respondents who believe that Idaho was headed in the right direction were more likely to favor revenue generation (15%) than those who believe it is on the wrong track (7%), while those who believe Idaho is on the wrong track were more likely to favor preservation (30% compared to 21%). There were no generalizable differences for revenue generation or ecosystem health.

Few regional variations are evident. Respondents from Southcentral Idaho were more likely than other regions to favor ecosystem health (35% as compared to 21% for Eastern, 27% for Southwest, and 29% for Northern Idaho) and less likely to favor revenue generation (6% compared to 14% for Eastern, 10% for Southwest, and 13% for Northern Idaho). Other regional differences fell within the margin of error. Additionally, new arrivals to Idaho were slightly more likely to favor preservation (28%) than longtime residents (24%), while longtime residents were more likely to favor public access (31% compared to 25%). There were no generalizable differences for revenue generation or ecosystem health.

On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being not at all concerned and 10 being extremely concerned, how concerned are you about rural farmland in Idaho being developed into housing?

Respondents were asked to rate their concern for rural farmlands in Idaho on a scale from 1 (not at all concerned) to 10 (extremely concerned), a question last asked in 2017 as part of the 2nd Annual Idaho Public Policy Survey. The mean score was 7.5, with 32% rating their level of concern a 10 and less than 20% rating their level below a 5, suggesting that respondents are highly concerned about rural farmland. Compared to 10 years ago, most rating groupings fell within the margin of error, with only a four-point increase in those having no opinion falling outside of it, suggesting that levels of concern have remained relatively stable over time.

Partisan and regional differences were marginal on this issue. The mean score for Republicans was 7.6 compared to 7.5 for Democrats and 35% of Republicans rated their concern a 10, compared to 32% of Democrats, within the margin of error. The mean score for Northern Idaho, was 7.7, for Southwest was 7.5, for Southcentral was 7.3, and for Eastern was 7.5, with 33% (Northern), 31% (Southwest), 36% (Southcentral), and 31% (Eastern) of respondents rating this issue a 10.

In contrast, differences emerged between new arrivals and longtime residents. Specifically, the mean rating score for new arrivals was 7.0 compared to 7.6 for longtime residents, and 26% of new arrivals rated farmland preservation a 10 compared to 34% of longtime residents.

A combination of federal orders and the demands of the rising A.I. industry means there has been increased attention on energy production, as well as a shift and increasing reliance on natural gas. Because of this, we were interested in better understanding people’s thoughts and preferences on low-carbon alternative energy sources. As there was not enough room to capture every possibility, we focused particularly on those with land use impacts that people generally see as controversial, including those that have had actual projects proposed in Idaho, and asked Idahoans what they think Idaho should most prioritize increasing its production of.

Idaho relies on a mix of energy sources to power homes and businesses. Which of the following energy sources do you think Idaho should most prioritize increasing its production of?

Idahoans were split on which energy source should be prioritized for increased production. While nearly a quarter (24%) of respondents favored prioritizing nuclear production, 20% favored hydroelectric, 19% solar, 12% wind, 6% geothermal, 4% hydrogen, and 2% energy storage batteries. The remaining 13% were unsure.

Partisan affiliation impacted preferences for energy sources. Republicans favored nuclear (28%), hydroelectric (27%), and solar (12%), while Democrats favored solar (34%), wind (22%), and hydroelectric (11%) and Independents favored nuclear (25%), solar (21%), and hydroelectric (17%). The largest partisan gaps were for nuclear (28% Republican versus 10% Democrat) and solar (34% Democrat and 12% Republican).

Respondents who believe Idaho is headed in the right direction favored nuclear (27%), hydroelectric (23%), and solar (15%), and those who believe Idaho is on the wrong track favored solar (25%), nuclear (21%), and hydroelectric (18%). While differences between new arrivals and longtime residents favoring wind, solar, and hydroelectric were within the margin of error, there was a 8-point gap between new arrivals (30%) and longtime residents (22%) on nuclear power. Additionally, men were far more likely to favor nuclear power than women (32% compared to 15%) and less likely to favor solar (16% compared to 22%) and wind (10% compared to 14%).

The most pronounced variations appear at the regional-level. Northern Idaho respondents favored hydroelectric (24%), nuclear (22%), and solar (20%). Southwest Idaho respondents favored nuclear (21%), hydroelectric (21%) and solar (21%). Southcentral Idaho respondents favored hydroelectric (22%), solar (21%), and wind (16%). Eastern Idaho respondents favored nuclear (35%), wind (19%), and hydroelectric (13%). The most striking regional gaps were for nuclear, where 35% of Eastern Idaho respondents favored it, compared to 14% of Southcentral, 21% of Southwestern, and 22% of Northern Idaho respondents.

Would you support or oppose your local utility provider switching to this source of energy if it might result in a higher electricity bill for you and your family?

We followed up this question by asking whether respondents would support or oppose their local utility provider switching to their preferred energy source if it might result in a higher electricity bill for them and their family. However, respondents were generally split on that possibility, with 44% supporting and 43% opposing a switch under those conditions. Democrats were most likely to support a switch (54%) compared to Republicans (41%) and Independents (43%). Longtime residents were also more likely to support a switch (45%) compared to new arrivals (39%). Interestingly, the gender gap was relatively large with 51% of men supporting a switch, even if it means higher prices, compared to 36% of women. There was no generalizable difference between respondents who believed Idaho was headed in the right direction versus wrong track.

Regional variations were also pronounced. Northern Idaho respondents were most in support of switching power sources (51%), while Eastern Idaho respondents were least in support (31%) – a 20-point gap. 45% of Southwestern and 47% of Southcentral Idaho respondents also supported a switch.

Additionally, support for paying more for electricity varied by preferred energy source. Respondents who believe energy storage batteries (81%), hydrogen (62%), or solar (55%) were largely willing to pay more to switch to those energy sources.  In contrast, respondents who favored nuclear (45%), wind (49%), geothermal (41%), or hydroelectric (43%) were less supportive of a switch if it meant paying more.

And which of the following best describes your current attitude about nuclear energy projects in Idaho?

Finally, we asked Idahoans what best describes their current attitude about nuclear energy projects in Idaho. As the preceding results suggest, respondents were also split on their attitudes towards nuclear energy projects, with 46% having a positive attitude, 18% having a negative attitude, and 28% being neutral. There was a partisan gap on this issue, with a majority of Republicans (56%) holding positive attitudes, compared to lesser proportions of Democrats (34%) and Independents (41%). Additionally, 53% of those who believe Idaho is headed in the right direction hold positive attitudes towards nuclear energy projects, compared to 42% who believe Idaho is on the wrong track. Notably, one of the biggest gaps is between men and women: 58% of men have a positive attitude towards nuclear projects compared to 33% of women – a 25-point gap between genders. There was no generalizable difference between new arrivals and longtime residents.

Regionally, Eastern Idaho was most likely to hold positive attitudes toward nuclear projects (51%), and Southcentral Idaho respondents were least likely to do so (40%), with Southwest (45%) and Northern (44%) Idaho respondents falling in between. Unsurprisingly, respondents who hold positive attitudes towards nuclear projects were also overwhelmingly likely to support prioritizing nuclear energy over other forms; specifically, 54% of respondents who hold very positive attitudes and 37% holding somewhat positive attitudes believe nuclear energy should be prioritized. In contrast, those holding very negative (2%) or somewhat (1%) negative attitudes towards nuclear projects believe it should be the lowest priority.

Conclusion

All together, this year’s survey results reflect the delicate balance of a complex Idaho citizenry. Idahoans are split, with pluralities simultaneously believing optimistically that the state is headed in the right direction but pessimistically expecting its economy to get worse over the next two years. Results show an undercurrent of economic worry: 3-in-5 Idahoans report they and their families are either just getting by or struggling to get by financially; 2-in-5 report that access to healthcare in the state is difficult; and housing affordability continues to be a top concern. Yet, on other issues, including public lands and education, Idahoans’ positions have remained largely stable – even 10 years later.

Navigating these contradictions is a challenge faced by policymakers every year. The Idaho Public Policy Survey allows us to better understand the policy positions and preferences of the public to inform solutions across the policy landscape. It is an opportunity to see where Idaho is now relative to where it has been, so that they, and policymakers, can better determine where the state goes next.

Since 1990, the Idaho Policy Institute has surveyed Idahoans about their opinions on relevant topics in our state. To view previous survey dashboards, visit our website. To support these surveys or to inquire about how we can conduct a survey for your organization, please contact: Dr. Matthew May, Survey Research Director – matthewmay1@boisestate.edu, (208) 426-3715, 1910 University Drive, Boise, ID 83725-1935

School of Public Service faculty and staff available to share their expertise. Find a complete list on our website.