There will be an Idaho Constitutional Amendment on the ballot in the November election. You should vote NO.
This proposed amendment comes from the Idaho Legislature. They want the State Constitution to say they can call themselves into session whenever they can muster enough of their own colleagues to sign a petition. The way the Idaho Constitution currently reads, only the governor can call a special session. The governor must specify one specific issue for the legislature to address. The proposed amendment has that restriction also, “one specific purpose”.
Why shouldn’t the Idaho legislature have the same authority many other states have? Thirty-six other states have such a provision, with various requirements for just how many need to agree to make the call. So, this would be putting Idaho on par with Alaska, Hawaii, Utah and 33 others. Their states haven’t melted down. We wouldn’t either. But I’m sorry, our legislature’s history makes me nervous.
Do you remember the last time the Idaho legislature asked us voters to change our Constitution? A few years back, the legislature wanted us to approve an amendment to our Constitution to enshrine their authority to review, approve or reject administrative rules. The legislature was already doing this, as the laws they had passed decreed. But they were nervous. The separation of powers gets blurred when the legislature passes a law, the administration writes rules to enforce these laws, then the legislature gets to review and approve or reject these rules.
The first time the legislature proposed the “Rules” amendment, it failed. But then some legislators got some Farm Bureau and Freedom Foundation money to support it and they ran it again two years later. This time, for some mysterious reason, we voters approved it. I guess we wised up.
But look at the record since we gave the legislature constitutional authority to review rules. NOT ONCE, since that amendment passed has the legislature done their job to review, approve or reject rules.
I know some of the Idaho legislature leadership and I don’t consider them immature. But this behavior reminds me of a two-year-old. They throw a tantrum about a toy their older brother has. But when the brother shares the toy, they have no interest in it.
So maybe, if we approve the amendment, given our legislature’s pediatric behavior, they will never exercise it? I’m asking us voters to be the grown-ups in this state. Vote No.
The Idaho legislature has constitutionally fixed dates to convene every year, with no fixed date to adjourn. Giving them the flexibility of calling themselves into session is like nagging the teenager playing his video games. “Have you done your homework?” They will not knuckle down to the serious tasks before them. Certainly not if they can consider doing it “later”.
One of my daughters had a bad habit of expressing her anger by storming off to her room and slamming the door. We asked her politely. Then we warned her. Finally, I took her bedroom door off. A week later I replaced it. Within a day, she slammed it again. That door stayed off until she moved out. It still sags some.
If we vote this amendment down, like we should, expect it to come back in two years with more money behind it. Maybe the lobbying groups can persuade us voters to be wiser with their dark money. Legislative leaders will welcome it.
The separation of powers is a fundamental principle of this republic.
Legislators represent us, write laws that serve our common good, and the Executive branch enforces those laws. Our legislature already has its finger in the enforcement role, through rules review. Don’t give them another finger to put where it doesn’t belong. Vote NO on SJR 102.