We created a scorecard to quickly show how well each bill protects Idaho's sovereignty, jobs, families, limited government, and the freedom of Idaho citizens -priorities that match what 80% of Idahoans tell us in surveys: unchecked immigration threatens our resources, wages, and values. Yet, special interests like BigAg and the Idaho Association of Commerce & Industry (IACI) often block enforcement to prioritize cheap labor over voter priorities. Our scoring flips this by building pressure through data, tracking, and county-level mobilization ahead of the 2026 session. Here's the basic system in plain English:

1) Category Criteria and Scores: Alignment with Secure Idaho's Vision

We evaluate bills against 9 key categories that embody Idaho's core values: State Sovereignty (securing independence from federal encroachment), State Culture (protecting moral values and community cohesion), Constitutional Principles (upholding separation of powers), Government Accountability (ensuring transparency), Government Size (limiting government), Government Efficiency (fighting waste), Family Success (prioritizing families), Small Business Success (supporting the American Dream), and Individual Liberty (safeguarding personal freedoms).

For each category, we ask targeted sub-questions based on bill text, data, and potential impacts:

• Does it strengthen/enhance/improve the goal? → +1 point

• Does it diminish/undermine/hurt the goal? → -1 point

• Neutral or no effect? → 0 points

We average the sub-questions per category (equal weighting), then sum the 9 averages for an Overall Raw score (-9 to +9). This is converted to a 0–100 Secure Idaho Alignment Score: (Raw + 9) ÷ 18 × 100. Higher scores mean stronger alignment with protecting Idaho from unchecked immigration strains.

2) Impact Rating: The 5 Levels of Real-World Effect

Beyond alignment, we rate the bill's potential impact on a 1–5 scale, considering scope (statewide vs. limited), enforcement (penalties vs. voluntary), projected effects (e.g., reducing job/housing/welfare strains per data), blockability (vulnerable to BigAg amendments/exemptions), and precedent.

• 1: Symbolic/Minimal (e.g., resolutions, studies - no enforcement; limited to one program/county; no teeth; easily blocked; minimal precedent). Low pressure on special interests.

• 2: Narrow/Limited (e.g., one-sector restrictions; easy exemptions; voluntary compliance; some data tracking but weak follow-through; moderate block risk). Incremental but not transformative.

• 3: Moderate (e.g., partial mandates with penalties; metrics for review; affects multiple sectors but with gaps; builds some precedent; medium risk of weakening). Builds momentum for county mobilization.

• 4: Significant (e.g., statewide mandates with real penalties; direct protections for jobs/resources; hard to exempt; strong data-driven effects; counters BigAg influence). High advocacy value.

• 5: Transformative (e.g., full E-Verify/sanctuary bans; blocks federal/H-2A overreach systemically; robust enforcement; statewide scope; sets major precedent for 2026 flips). Game-changer for sovereignty.

This rating ensures we prioritize bills with teeth over feel-good measures.

3) Bill Tier: How Alignment + Impact Determine Priority and Legislator Impact

We combine the Alignment Score (0–100) and Impact Rating (1–5) to assign a Tier (1–3), which sets a multiplier for how much the bill affects legislator scores on our dashboard. Higher alignment + higher impact = higher tier. For example: Strong alignment (80+) with transformative impact (5) might earn Tier 1; moderate alignment (50–69) with narrow impact (2) might be Tier 3.

• Tier 1 (Multiplier: 4x – High Impact): Top priority—strong alignment, significant/transformative effects. These bills (e.g., mandatory E-Verify) heavily influence legislator scores; supporting them boosts a rep's grade, while blocking tanks it. We rally hard (petitions, rallies, county task force posts).

• Tier 2 (Multiplier: 2.5x – Medium Impact): Solid alignment, moderate/significant effects. Worth backing but monitored for amendments (e.g., sanctuary bans). Medium weight on scores—encourages flips without overwhelming.

• Tier 3 (Multiplier: 1.5x – Limited Impact): Weaker alignment or lower impact (e.g., studies or partial restrictions). Low weight on legislator scores—doesn't make or break a grade but tracks patterns (e.g., repeated BigAg ties). We watch/expose rather than lead advocacy.

• Tier 4 (1x multiplier – Minimal Impact): Low alignment + symbolic/narrow impact. Mostly feel-good or toothless measures that don’t meaningfully protect Idahoans from immigration strains. Minimal or no weight on legislator scores - we note them for patterns but focus energy elsewhere (e.g., stronger bills).

Why tiers matter: They ensure high-stakes bills count more toward legislator accountability. A vote on a Tier 1 bill could swing a score by 40–80 points; Tier 3 by just 15–30. This pressures reps to prioritize voter demands over lobby donors (see our Follow the Money dashboard for BigAg PAC ties).

SB 1440 scores 66 because it is a targeted financial pressure mechanism rather than a direct enforcement bill. The legislation establishes an excise tax on international money transmissions originating in Idaho, requiring licensed transmitters to collect and remit the tax while maintaining transaction records and submitting quarterly reports to the Idaho State Tax Commission. The bill pairs this tax with a refundable credit or direct refund for individuals who can demonstrate lawful presence in the United States, creating a legal distinction in how the policy applies across populations. This structure is intended to impose a cost on remittance activity associated with unlawful employment while avoiding direct regulation of immigration status or expansion of arrest or detention authority.

While S1440 introduces real enforcement tools through audit authority, tax liens, and the potential suspension of noncompliant transmitter licenses, it does not directly regulate hiring practices, mandate employment verification, or expand cooperation with federal immigration enforcement programs. The bill instead operates downstream of illegal labor by targeting financial outflows rather than the underlying employment relationship. It also includes exemptions for transactions conducted through banking institutions or where lawful presence is verified at the point of transaction, which narrows the scope of its application and limits its reach across the broader remittance ecosystem.

S1440 relies on a refund-based compliance structure and administrative verification of lawful presence, which may reduce its deterrent effect and introduce operational complexity. The availability of refunds to both tax filers and non-filers, combined with a multi-year claim window, creates potential for administrative burden and inconsistent application. Additionally, exemptions tied to banking channels and pre-verified individuals may shift behavior rather than reduce total remittance activity. As a result, while the bill introduces a meaningful and enforceable financial signal, it does not by itself materially alter statewide immigration or labor market dynamics.

However, by establishing a clear legal distinction tied to financial activity and creating a state-controlled enforcement framework with real compliance consequences, S1440 represents a substantive policy tool that goes beyond symbolic measures. It creates measurable pressure in a specific segment of the illegal labor economy while remaining politically viable and legally defensible. Although it falls short of system-level enforcement reforms, S1440 advances Idaho’s ability to address the economic incentives underlying illegal immigration and provides a foundation that could be strengthened through future policy alignment with employment and cooperation measures.

Impact Rating = 3 (2: Narrow/limited scope (e.g., one-sector reporting, easy exemptions). Tier = 3 (2.5x multiplier).

Want the full breakdown? Scroll down for the category table (every sub-question, score, average), impact notes, and tier rationale.