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).

HB 659 scores 69 because it establishes a structured pathway toward statewide 287(g) participation while leaving final enforcement decisions largely discretionary. The legislation requires Idaho law enforcement agencies to apply for participation in federal 287(g) programs and introduces a more formalized framework for coordination with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It also requires that any decision not to participate be supported by a specific written finding of fact from a local governing body and publicly disclosed, increasing transparency and political accountability around non-participation.

By involving county commissioners or city councils in the opt-out process, the bill raises the visibility of these decisions and shifts responsibility to elected officials. This structure improves oversight compared to prior approaches by requiring local governments to formally justify their decisions and communicate them beyond the agency level. In practice, this may create pressure in jurisdictions where elected officials are accountable to voters who expect cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

However, S1441 does not require actual participation in 287(g) agreements and provides a clear, subjective standard for opting out based on local service constraints. The bill does not include enforcement mechanisms, funding consequences, or penalties for non-compliance, and it leaves final authority over participation in the hands of local governing bodies rather than establishing a uniform statewide requirement. As a result, outcomes will vary across jurisdictions depending on local political decisions, limiting the bill’s ability to deliver consistent enforcement statewide.

While S1441 represents a meaningful step toward improved coordination and accountability, it stops short of mandating participation or creating enforceable standards. Compared to earlier versions, the bill improves the structure and transparency of opt-out decisions but reduces the implicit pressure on agencies to participate. As such, it advances the policy conversation but falls short of the comprehensive enforcement framework needed to meaningfully address illegal immigration at the state level.

Impact Rating = 4 (significant statewide mandate with real enforcement effect through jail and warrant cooperation, but limited by reliance on federal approval and absence of penalties). Tier = 3 (1.5× multiplier).

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