Idaho Bill Targeting Student Protesters Fails in Committee

Lawmakers rejected a proposal that would have penalized students for missing school to participate in political protests.

Published on Mar. 6, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Lawmakers in Idaho turned down a bill that would have barred schools from granting excused absences to students who left school to participate in political protests or student walkouts. The bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Steven Tanner, aimed to prevent what he called "political activism" in public education, but faced pushback from lawmakers and student advocates who argued it would infringe on free speech and parental rights.

Why it matters

The failed bill highlights the ongoing debate over the role of political activism in schools and the rights of students to engage in protests and other forms of civic participation during school hours. While some lawmakers view student walkouts as disruptive, others see them as valuable learning experiences that allow young people to exercise their First Amendment rights.

The details

Under the proposed legislation, schools would have been required to mark students with unexcused absences if they left to participate in protests, work or volunteer for groups engaged in political activism, or take part in student walkouts. These unexcused absences would have counted against the district's average daily attendance numbers, which are used to determine funding. The bill also called for reporting the total number of protest-related absences to the state superintendent.

  • The bill was introduced and debated in the Idaho House Education committee in March 2026.

The players

Rep. Steven Tanner

The Republican lawmaker from Nampa, Idaho who sponsored the bill targeting student protesters.

Rep. Dan Garner

A Republican lawmaker from Clifton, Idaho who questioned the bill's impact on parental rights, citing his own experience participating in a student walkout as a teenager.

Rep. Chris Mathias

A Democratic lawmaker from Boise, Idaho who expressed concerns about the state "sticking its nose" into the relationship between parents, children and schools.

Olivia Luna

The president of Babe Vote, a student advocacy group, who testified against the bill and said it would send the wrong message to young Idahoans.

Quinn Perry

The deputy director of the Idaho School Boards Association, who argued the bill would create administrative burdens and infringe on constitutionally protected activities.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“While we recognize the First Amendment right to protest and to use political speech by all students, it's a waste of taxpayer money for students to leave their classrooms to do so. Students are free to protest at any other time.”

— Rep. Steven Tanner, Bill Sponsor (Idaho Statesman)

“If a parent decides that it's OK and they feel like their kid's going to learn more about government and the proper way to address their concerns about something that's going on in the community, is this, in your opinion, is this a step on parental rights?”

— Rep. Dan Garner, Republican Lawmaker (Idaho Statesman)

“We are concerned with the message it would send to young Idahoans. Most high school students that this bill would target aren't even old enough to vote, and still, decisions are made that dictate their lives every single day.”

— Olivia Luna, President, Babe Vote (Idaho Statesman)

“This bill solves no existing problem. Students who leave to protest are already counted as absent. But it does create a new administrative burden, creates enforcement problems, infringes on parental rights and entangles schools in monitoring constitutionally protected activity.”

— Quinn Perry, Deputy Director, Idaho School Boards Association (Idaho Statesman)

What’s next

The bill failed on a tie vote in the House Education committee, effectively ending its chances of becoming law in the current legislative session.

The takeaway

This failed legislation highlights the ongoing debate over the appropriate balance between student free speech rights, parental authority, and the operational needs of public schools. While some lawmakers view student protests as disruptive, others see them as valuable civic engagement that should be protected.