Put these in the category of gifts that keep on giving - at least for commentators: Idaho legislation from the just-completed session that (mostly) generated some news coverage, but are not done with us yet.
Or with the legislature, which likely will be revisiting these subjects again.
(This list incidentally, is drawn from a rundown of “key actions” of the last legislative session prepared by legislative staff, available online. It’s worth your perusal.)
This isn’t strictly a rundown of bad ideas. I think at least one was well worth passing, potential uproar notwithstanding.
That is Senate Bill 1032, which requires school districts and charter schools to set a policy on student use of smartphones (the bill language is a little broader) during school hours. It does not dictate specifics but does “emphasize that student use of electronic communications devices be as limited as possible in school buildings and on school grounds or premises during school hours; and reduce distractions ...” Its combination of direction with flexibility makes it better than some comparable bills in other states.
Opinions on school day smartphone use are all over the map, and the debate will rage. Fine: It’s the sort of policy discussion people and their representatives should hash out.
But other bills carry different lessons.
House Bill 7, setting a minimum $300 fine for first time convictions of marijuana possession of three ounces, or less, has an open bottom end: No limit on how much is enough to run afoul of Idaho criminal law. A seed might be enough. Or less: A fiber of the offending plant presumably would qualify to place an unwitting person in violation of the law. You think it couldn’t happen? Famous last words.
Precision and definition matter. House Bill 270 is billed as covering indecent exposure, expanding on earlier law to cover exposure of certain breasts. And which are those? The bill does sort of define them (and I wouldn’t dare try to paraphrase any of this): “developed female breasts, including the areola and nipple; to expose adult male breasts, including the areola and nipple, that have been medically or hormonally altered to appear like developing or developed female breasts; to expose artificial breasts, including the areola and nipple, intended to resemble female breasts.”
Sympathies to the law officers trying to enforce that one. Either the law will be essentially ignored, or it will generate more culture war headlines for Idaho, bouncing the subject back to the legislature.
Extensive definition may bring to court Senate Bill 1198a, which ostensibly aims to “to ensure freedom of inquiry in higher education.” Except that it contains a long list of subjects and ideas intended to be banned from instruction (good-bye freedom of inquiry) in Idaho colleges and universities as too DEI: “any trainings, programs, activities, or instruction that is derived from or that promotes the tenets or concepts of critical theory, including but not limited to the concepts of unconscious or implicit bias, microaggressions, internalized racism, cultural appropriation, structural equity, settler colonialism, group marginalization, systemic oppression, social justice, institutional or systemic racism, white fragility, racial privilege, disparate impact, intersectionality, sexual privilege, patriarchy, gender theory, queer theory, neopronouns, transgender ideology, misgendering, othering, deadnaming, heteronormativity, allyship, or any other related formulation of these tenets or concepts.” None of these are defined, so good luck trying to follow the law.
Senate Bill 1210a, the “Idaho Medical Freedom Act,” likewise consists of a bunch of state-imposed prohibitions - this time on Idaho businesses. Building on a law aimed at battling efforts to combat the Covid-19 pandemic (what can you say?), this one says a business “shall not refuse to provide any service, product, admission to a venue, or transportation to a person because that person has or has not received or used a medical intervention.” A medical intervention “means a medical procedure, treatment, device, drug, injection, medication, or medical action taken to diagnose, prevent, or cure a disease or alter the health or biological function of a person.”
That’ll just thrill not only medical providers and places like restaurants that have to monitor their sites for health concerns, but anyone concerned with spreading contagious illness. Ebola, anyone?
Senate Bill 1012, creating a new wildlife depredations appeals board, exempts it from open meeting requirements. Shutting the public out is over time bound to create significant issues.
Check out the list of passed legislation for yourself, and have fun adding to this list ...