Idaho’s Scorecard Civil War: What Voters Need to Know

There’s been a lot of talk this last year about legislative scorecards in Idaho, who uses them, who suddenly hates them, and why.

(You can watch a detailed video on this topic at the end of the article.)

What’s funny is that many of the same people who used to praise tools like the Idaho Freedom Foundation’s Freedom Index are now attacking it using old establishment talking points. Overnight, they’ve gone from supporters to critics, and they’re doing it in a way that helps the very politicians they once claimed to oppose.

Before we go any further, let’s get something straight: ratings, endorsements, scorecards, pledges, surveys, all of them are valuable tools for voters in various ways. They all have limitations, but unless you’re going to reject every one of them, you can’t attack one system without looking like a hypocrite. The honest approach is simple: explain why you trust one scorecard metric over another and let voters decide.

I’ve heard complaints about scorecards for years. When the IFF first launched the Freedom Index, the establishment immediately realized it exposed their big‑government voting habits. They hated it, not because it was inaccurate, but because it was effective.

Meanwhile, those same lawmakers never had a problem scoring well on the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry’s rating system. IACI is widely viewed by conservatives as the big‑government scorecard, and wouldn’t you know it, most establishment Republicans consistently score high with IACI and low with IFF.

You also never hear them complain about NRA ratings. In Idaho, it’s easy to be pro‑Second Amendment while being terrible on a dozen other issues. But an NRA “A” rating looks great on a mailer, so nobody in the establishment ever questions that system. The NRA rating system has helped keep a lot of establishment RINOs in power, one of its biggest downsides.

Years ago, the establishment’s favorite line was: “The IFF rating system is rigged.” That’s always been laughable. The Freedom Index uses a 14‑point metric (formerly 12) to determine whether a bill grows or shrinks government, and rates bills before the vote, which removes much of the bias. It’s the most transparent system I’ve seen anywhere. (Note: They recently added a social impact metric.)

Fast‑forward to 2025–2026, and suddenly, a group of lobbyists, activists, GOP leaders, and lawmakers who once touted the IFF are now attacking it and other scorecards. They’re undermining any scorecard that doesn’t flatter their preferred politicians, while ignoring flaws in the ones they like.

Take Stop Idaho RINOs’ new Idaho GOP platform scorecard. John Heida built a detailed system using multiple AI models to evaluate whether bills align with the Idaho GOP platform. It rates every non‑unanimous vote, a massive undertaking, and SIR openly explains its methodology and limitations. GOP Chairwoman Dorothy Moon took shots at the scorecard in an Op-Ed, which was strange because the SIR scorecard nearly matches the IFF results.

Naturally, the establishment hates it. It exposes them as RINOs, and while the scorecard isn’t perfect, it’s still a great metric for voters.

Then there’s the Idaho chapter of Citizens Alliance. Citizens Alliance of Idaho (CAI) uses a pledge system and rates bills based on whether lawmakers uphold that pledge. Matt Edwards, who runs CAI, said they don’t post anything on their website for metrics. Here is what he said CAI does:

“We don’t post a public link to the bills that make up their score, because we designed our system to just be pass or fail.

The short version is we analyze every bill that gets a vote in either chamber floor to see if relates to anything within the pledge. If it does, we determine if it is a clear positive support or negative attack on which ever statement it relates to. Or if it’s neutral, we ignore it.

Since the pledge is easy to read and comprehend, and there ways to interpret some bills differently (certainly not all) we leave it up to constituents to battle out specific bills they don’t like by encouraging contacting their legislator.”

What’s interesting is that over the last year, some activists and lawmakers up north, people who once championed the IFF, now repeat the establishment’s old script: “rigged,” “biased,” “useless,” “unreliable.” Yet these same critics say nothing about CAI’s lack of published metrics. Their outrage is selective, and it’s driven by personalities, not principles.

Whether they admit it or not, they’re helping the old GOP establishment regain power, and they’re doing it deliberately.

Voters should use all scorecards as part of their research. I like the IFF because it rates a huge number of bills with clear metrics. When I see lawmakers scoring above 90%, I know they’re voting largely as they promised on the campaign trail. Score an 80% or above, and you’re probably not a RINO, though I’d like to see you vote a little better.

If you’re scoring in the C range, you’re in RINO territory. A C is barely passing, and that’s not good enough in what’s supposed to be one of the most conservative states in the country. And if you’re scoring a D or F, you’re beyond a RINO, because Democrats live in that range.

I also like the SIR scorecard because it shows how closely lawmakers follow the GOP platform across many bills, and I appreciate that the metrics are posted and transparent.

Here’s the bottom line: Idaho voters have tools most states only wish they had. The Freedom Index has been the gold standard nationally, and despite its imperfections, it has pushed Idaho in a more conservative direction.

Trying to destroy the IFF Index is straight out of the establishment’s playbook. Anyone pushing that agenda, knowingly or not, is helping turn Idaho into the next California and advancing the left’s Gem State Heist.