Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “Idaho Legislature”

Conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest

January 24, 2025

This comparison and contrast between Idahoans and their leaders isn’t new in principle, but it’s worth reiterating as the Idaho state government sets about its annual goal setting in the form of the Idaho Legislature.

Every year, for many years now, and generally toward the start of the legislative session, the Idaho Public Policy Survey is released at Boise State University. It is a poll of Idaho’s people about a wide range of public issues.

The survey was conducted by GS Strategy Group; if you wonder (as I do) about how such a survey is conducted these days, GS reported that 38% was done by cell phone, 11% by landline phones, 40% online and 11% by text message. It was conducted in the first part of November.

Its top line was a reversal of the previous year, as respondents found Idaho is moving in the right direction - although what that means exactly isn’t especially clear. Two different people might say, for example, “right direction,” and mean wholly different things by it.

Most of the rest of the findings were more specific and less ambiguous, and very much in line with findings from previous years, which lends some strength to their plausibility. Here are the report’s “key findings” (the whole list) on issues:

“For the second consecutive year, workforce and affordable housing is Idahoans’ top overall legislative budget priority.

“Increased teacher pay is Idahoans’ top education budget priority.

“A majority of Idahoans say they oppose (53%) the use of tax dollars to pay for a private or religious school.

“Nearly half of Idahoans (49%) say access to health care is difficult in the state.

“39% of Idahoans say increasing the number of immigrants helps Idaho’s economy, but that proportion grows to 46% when discussing legal immigrants specifically.

“A majority of Idahoans (55%) believe that abortion should be permitted in Idaho through at least the first trimester. A majority (64%) also believe that exceptions for abortion access should be expanded.

“A majority of Idahoans (51%) have concerns about the security of elections in the United States, but less than a quarter (22%) have concerns about the security in Idaho itself.

“A majority of Idahoans are concerned about campaign spending by independent groups in Idaho.”

That sounds not only very different from the high priorities of the Idaho Legislature, it sounds directly in contradiction to them.

Many states (Oregon, California and Washington among them) are spending much of their legislative effort on housing. (A suggestion: Check out what other state legislatures are doing, since most of them are meeting by this time of year. What are they dealing with? Some, you will find, are very like Idaho, and others are highly different.) How successful those efforts will be is unknown, but they’re trying. It’s not a top priority at the Idaho Legislature. Neither is homelessness, which is a big topic elsewhere in western states.

Attitudes toward abortion and immigration clearly are very different statewide than at the Statehouse. Idahoans generally do not seem comfortable with the how-absolute-can-we-make-our-abortion-ban approach at the legislature.

Health care access in Idaho - which by any reasonable standard is one of the top problems in Idaho right now - obviously registers as a serious matter for many Idahoans. You’ll not find a lot of action in that area at the legislature, which in recent years has gone out of its way to make the problem worse.

Most Idahoans say they’re concerned about the massively-rising levels of campaign spending by independent (often out of state) groups in Idaho elections, including but not exclusively legislative elections. Expect the sound of crickets about that at the Statehouse.

Idaho’s legislators aren’t acting in secret. There are plenty of ways Idahoans actually can track, in detail and even in real time, the actions of their lawmakers at Boise. Few seem to do it. Probably few even know who their legislator is (except that, for nearly everyone, it’s an “R”).

That’s the simplest straight-line explanation of why so many legislators get so easily re-elected. Doing the will of the people doesn’t really seem to explain it.

 

The judge shortage

January 6, 2025

Very few well-qualified lawyers have applied for Idaho district court positions in recent years. District courts handle trials of felony cases, as well as all types of civil cases affecting the lives and property of individuals and businesses.  Putting these disputes in the hands of judges without substantial experience is risky business.

The problem of recruiting experienced candidates for positions on our district courts has reached crisis proportions. Periodic surveys disclose that quite a few smart, capable, middle-aged lawyers, both men and women, are interested in serving in a judicial position. However, the low pay is always named as a substantial roadblock. Almost any seasoned lawyer would have to take a pay cut of well over 50% to be a judge.

The salary concern came front and center in 2022 when the Legislature gave every state employee, except for judges, a 7% cost-of-living pay increase. Idaho judges were already at the bottom of the national pay scale. Comments in the Legislature indicated that the denial of a pay raise was in retaliation for the Idaho Supreme Court’s decision striking down a 2021 bill that would have essentially made it impossible for voters to use their constitutional power to conduct initiatives and referendums.

Some legislators have done everything in their power in these last two sessions to make district and appellate court positions unappetizing–trying to politicize the Idaho Judicial Council selection process, trying to limit or totally do away with a useful retirement option and trying to force contested elections, among other things. Those discouraging efforts have been remarkably successful in reducing the number of highly-qualified candidates who apply for district court positions.

The crux of the problem is that candidates for the district court must have ten years of legal experience–just when talented lawyers start climbing the compensation ladder. Not many of them would opt for a district court position without assurance of a favorable and reliable compensation package.

The current annual salary for district judges is $155,508 or $77.76 per hour for a 40-hour work week. Most of those judges find it necessary to devote 60-80 hours per week to adequately handle their workloads. Seven deputies in the Idaho Attorney General’s office are paid more on an hourly basis than district judges. The Legislature routinely hires lawyers in private practice to represent it in litigation on specific issues at rates exceeding $400 per hour. The district court pay level may seem high to many folks, but lawyers who take cases to court are paid much more for their work. Hiring judges is kind of like getting any other good or service, the cheapest is not usually the best. To get good value, we must generally pay a bit more.

The other judges in our judicial system are also seriously underpaid. The annual pay of Supreme Court Justices is $169,508, which equates to $81.49 per hour, comparable to the pay rate for those seven deputy AGs. Court of Appeals judges are paid $161,508, or $77.65 per hour, and magistrate judges receive $147,508, or $70.92 per hour. Those salaries all need to be increased, but the real crisis is in the district judge ranks. The appellate courts have not been as seriously impacted because those positions are more sought-after for a variety of reasons. Magistrate judge openings currently produce numerous qualified applicants, partly because magistrates do not face election contests.

The solution to the scarcity of seasoned lawyers seeking district court positions is obvious–the Legislature must substantially increase judicial salaries. In the last legislative session, the Supreme Court put forth a bill calling for a 25% increase in judicial salaries over a four-year period–!0% the first year and 5% in each of the next three years. After that, salaries would be set by a nonpartisan citizen commission, just like legislative salaries are handled. It is a worthy proposal.

Idahoans can do a big favor for the courts, and themselves, by vigorously supporting such legislation during the next legislative session. People have much to lose if our courts are deprived of trial judges who understand and can competently decide difficult suits involving the rights of individuals and businesses. Legislators need to know that penny-pinching on judges will endanger the rights of all Idahoans.

 

Volunteers and party bosses

December 2, 2024

When I was going to law school in Chicago during the mid-1960s, Mayor Richard Daley was the undisputed boss of the Democratic Party in Cook County. Candidates had to be anointed by Daley if they hoped to win in the primary election. Those who won the Democratic primary were practically guaranteed to win in November. Once elected, candidates were expected to carefully toe the party line in order to keep their offices. I remember thinking at the time that independent-minded Idahoans would never descend to the depths of bossist politics.

But, politics in Idaho have dramatically changed in recent years, mostly because the Republican Party chose to close its primary election to all but registered members in 2011. That allowed an extreme branch of the GOP to grab power and it has increasingly tightened its grip on the Party ever since. The Party, now controlled by Dorothy Moon with the malign assistance of a number of dark money groups, resembles the old Daley political machine–anointed extremists defeat reasonable, problem-solving Republicans in the closed, low-turnout GOP primary and then coast to victory in November. They maintain their offices by carrying out the dictates of the party bosses. Even statewide officers often bend to the dictates of the political bosses.

About two years ago, former Republican House Speaker Bruce Newcomb, a charter member of the reasonable branch of the GOP, got together with Luke Mayville of Idaho’s all-volunteer Reclaim Idaho voter initiative group, to get rid of bossism in Idaho politics. The plan was to run an initiative to get rid of closed party primaries in the state and ensure that those elected in the general election had majority support from the entire electorate–Republicans, Independents, Democrats, whatever. As we know, that initiative, Prop 1, was handily defeated by the Moon forces on November 5.

There are any number of explanations for the defeat of Prop 1. The large turnout for Donald Trump likely played a part–the yes vote of 30.4% on Prop 1 was exactly the same as the 30.4% for Kamala Harris. The open primary part of the initiative consistently polled over 50% leading up to the election, but the ranked-choice part was a new concept and the subject of repeated false attacks by Moon’s GOP. Prop 1 lost, due to misinformation and fear of the unknown.

Moon and her allies contended that Prop 1 would turn Idaho into a liberal bastion, which was preposterous. Prop 1 was modeled after the Alaska initiative that was first used in that state’s 2022 election. It was well received by Alaskans, although the party bosses there hated it and set up an initiative this year to repeal it. The Moon forces claimed it was a disaster and would be repealed by Alaskans. In fact, they liked it and voted to retain it. Incidentally, Alaska voters replaced their Democratic Congresswoman with a Republican and replaced two Democratic House members with Republicans. Alaska has not become a liberal bastion, but its politics have become more civil and pragmatic.

Even though Prop 1 lost, there is much to be thankful for in this Thanksgiving season. I’m thankful for the 2,000 unpaid signature gatherers who braved the elements to gather 97,000 signatures to get the initiative on the ballot. AnnMarie Johnson and all of those who helped to raise well over $1 million from within the state are also to be thanked and, of course, those contributors. It was a herculean effort that brought people together across Idaho to accomplish a worthy goal. The campaign brought the bossism issue front and center, even though the proposed solution was voted down. The issue won’t go away until bossism is eliminated in the Gem State.

The coalition of good-government groups that came together to support Prop 1 may find themselves cooperating on future measures to improve representative governing in Idaho. Reclaim Idaho, North Idaho Republicans, Veterans for Idaho Voters, Mormon Women for Ethical Government, Take Back Idaho and a number of other groups deserve thanks for their intrepid work. Many young people proved themselves to be effective supporters and spokespersons for this good government measure. I suspect we may see some of them, like Hyrum Erickson from Rexburg  and J.D. Gould from Buhl, trying to make Idaho a better place to live.

A blessed Thanksgiving for all of them. And, while I’m at it, a good Thanksgiving, also, to all of my fellow Idahoans, including the bosses who opposed Prop 1.

 

Again

January 25, 2024

I had this conversation with my wife yesterday about Idaho’s abortion laws. I have told this before, but she said I needed to say it again. She didn’t remember. Maybe you don’t either.

The Idaho antiabortion statutes are so confusing, even Boise State couldn’t get it right. Up here in Moscow, we are not surprised. “Who do we hate, Boise State” has not been a chant heard here for a long time, but it echoes still between the grain elevators.

In their recent poll of Idaho residents, BSU prefaced a question with the statement “Currently in Idaho, abortion is banned after six weeks of pregnancy…”. That prefacing has no basis in statute. All abortions are banned, unless the doctor can positively attest the life of the mother is in jeopardy. There is also the exception for rape, if a police report has been filed, but my State Senator is trying to remove that. The BSU professors gulped when a reporter pointed this out to them.

In my previous column, I pointed out how these laws, no longer subject to Supreme Court protection, would make me a criminal. I guess I might be spending the last of my days in Idaho Correctional facilities. I ask the local prosecutor to come knock on my door.

I’ve told this story before.

A young woman didn’t want to be pregnant. But she was pretty far along when she came to me. It turned out her baby had a deformation not compatible with life outside her womb. It was anencephalic. The baby’s brain had not developed. She also had excessive amniotic fluid. Her cervix was ripe, meaning, I thought she could soon go into labor. I explained the situation to her, that her baby would not live, but in my opinion, she should deliver. She agreed.

The next day, I ruptured the membranes that surrounded her fetus, excuse me, “preborn child”. If the Idaho Legislature has it’s “Anti-woke” way, those are the words we now should all be using.

So now I want you to read the text of Idaho statute defining an abortion:

the use of any means to intentionally terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child…I.C. § 18-604(1)

I ruptured the membranes… “any means”.

The child will die outside of the womb… “cause the death”.

I could not attest that the condition of excessive amniotic fluid would cause the death of the mother, though it does carry a risk. I am guilty.

So, all women in Idaho carrying an anencephalic “Preborn Child” will need to leave the state, unless they are comfortable having their baby without medical intervention. For that doctor could go to prison.

Maybe the frequency of this condition is so rare we should just ignore it to protect all the other “Preborn” that could be murdered. There were probably only 5-10 anencephalies in Idaho last year. But there were a few Potters Syndromes, some other chromosomal aberrancies. It’s not up to the mother, the family. The legislature knows best, don’t they?

That is where our legislature, the people we have elected, have put us. I pity the women. I feel for the families. This is a tragedy. But our representatives do not have the compassion to consider their condition. Maybe they just can’t be compassionate.

But maybe we Idahoans can. The responses to that poorly prefaced BSU poll showed that 58% of Idahoans favored offering exceptions to the misrepresented restrictions. Remember, Boise State said you could get an abortion in Idaho before six weeks of pregnancy. Legally, you cannot. Ever.

It doesn’t really matter to our elected officials just what we think. I can’t tell who the heck they are listening to.

 

Idaho Briefing – January 1

December 31, 2017

This is a summary of a few items in the Idaho Weekly Briefing for January 1. Interested in subscribing? Send us a note at stapilus@ridenbaugh.com.

The U.S. Air Force has selected the Idaho Air National Guard’s Gowen Field in Boise as one of three “reasonable alternative” sites for the future basing of F-35A Lightning II fighter aircraft. Truax Field in Wisconsin and Dannelly Field in Alabama were selected as preferred alternatives. Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter, Boise Mayor David Bieter and Brigadier General Michael J. Garshak – Idaho’s adjutant general – said they were pleased that Gowen Field would remain under consideration to receive an F-35 mission. However, Gowen Field is not among the top two contenders.

All four of Idaho’s members of Congress voted in favor of the Republican-backed tax overhaul legislation, signed into law shortly before the end of the year by President Trump.

Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter announced the appointment today of Idaho Falls City Council member Barbara Ehardt to complete Janet Trujillo’s unexpired term in the Idaho House of Representatives.

Idaho's standard unemployment insurance tax rate for 2018 - will drop 1.5 percent to 1.374 percent for 2018.

The Boise City Council on December 19 approved a number of changes to the city’s downtown parking regulations in an effort to increase availability of on-street parking for short-term visits and to encourage use of garages and perimeter parking for longer stays.

It must be ice fishing season, because Lake Cascade is again kicking out record fish. Meridian angler Dave Gassel recently landed a 9.04-pound largescale sucker to take home the title.

PHOTO A hunter hunting water fowl in the southwest region. (Image: Roger Phillips, Idaho Fish & Game)

First take/tax match

January 26, 2016

One of the routine bills at the Idaho Legislature every year - every year for decades at least - is the tax match bill.

Every year, the Internal Revenue Service changes the rules, in ways large or small, for federal income taxes. And each year, reliably, Idaho follows suit, for the same reason other states imposing income taxes do: If they did not, residents and organizations would have to cope with far more complicated bookkeeping, trying to deal with two different tax standards. Are taxes a hassle for you? Failing to keep state rules in step with the federal would double the hassle factor.

Sometimes those changes do result in revenue changes for the state, either up or down. This year, a newly-allowed federal deduction on equipment buys by small businesses apparently could cost the state $22 million next year. It's not a huge ding in the context of the state budget, but it was enough to get mentioned when the IRS compliance bill came before the House tax committee.

Three committee members voted against the bill because of the change allowing joint filing by same-sex married couples.

Actually, in the current environment there's a little surprise that this normally routine bill doesn't become a cause celebre, with protests and nullification and all. After all, this is an issue with "federal" and "tax" written all over it.

Maybe though some legislators reflected on just how difficult filing their own taxes could become if the state doesn't fall in line. - rs (image/efile)

First take/defense fund

November 16, 2015

The name always sounded vainglorious - the Idaho "constitutional defense fund" - and its purpose a little iffy, since the state does already have an attorney general's office. (A pretty good one, too.) Still, you could sort of see the point of wanting to have some money set aside if state legislators wanted to defend what they do.

But the wisdom of having such a fund surely is linked to the wisdom used in tapping it. A new article by the Associated Press (disclosure: I'm quoted in it) looks into just that. And, it notes, since the first case in which the fund was used (over a nuclear waste agreement in 1996) "The next nine cases have all been losers for the state, including three cases defending abortion laws, two lawsuits involving gay rights and two lawsuits over the steps required to get initiatives on the ballot."

And by and large, the legislature was warned amply well in advance that these cases were not likely to succeed.

Legislators looking to cut budgets in the 2017 session might start with this one, unless they can figure out how to more wisely spend the money in the years to come. - rs

Closure unavailing

September 12, 2015

stapiluslogo1

“But they’re closed on Saturday!”

And not there on Friday either.

The Idaho Supreme Court decision last week throwing out Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter’s veto of the bill to ban instant horse racing at Les Bois Park, an action which has split pieces of the state executive and legislative branches down the middle, reads like a complex and abstract piece in most news reports. Attorney David Leroy called it a “sweeping and significant precedent.” Otter said he was certain the the veto he signed was valid.

What the court decision mostly was, was a recital of the law.

Let’s break it down.

Late in the afternoon of March 30, a Monday, Senate Bill 1011 (the racing bill) was physically carried to Otter’s office. He then could sign it into law, if he chose, or do nothing, in which case the bill would become law automatically. (Governors sometimes but not usually do this.) Or, he could veto it, but if he wanted to do that, he had to act promptly. The Idaho Constitution says: “Any bill which shall not be returned by the governor to the legislature within five days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, shall become a law in like manner as if he had signed it,” unless the legislature has already adjourned for the year. Which it hadn’t.

Otter’s choice was a veto, and he may have signed his veto message on April 3, a Friday. That’s within the five-day period. But the Constitution says the vetoed bill had to be returned to the legislature, specifically to the Senate, within those five days - that is, by Saturday afternoon. There was a complication: That was Easter weekend, and the legislature had adjourned on Thursday to take three days off.

Whether because of sloppiness or over-confidence or some other motivation, Otter or his staff must have thought it would be all right if the vetoed bill went back to the Senate the next Monday morning - which was more than five days (with Sunday not counted) after the bill was presented to him. What’s a few hours among friends?

And besides, what choice did he have? The legislature wasn’t there on Friday, right? The office doors were closed. How could he return the bill?

But the Idaho code actually covers a case like this. It says (in Section 67-504), “If, on the day the governor desires to return a bill without his approval and with his objections thereto to the house in which it originated, that house has adjourned for the day (but not for the session), he may deliver the bill with his message to the presiding officer, clerk, or any member of such house, and such delivery is as effectual as though returned in open session, if the governor, on the first day the house is again in session, by message notifies it of such delivery, and of the time when, and the person to whom, such delivery was made.”

In other words, the veto could have stuck if the governor’s office had on Friday or Saturday tracked down any state senator and handed him or her the vetoed bill - and then formally notified the Senate on Monday.

It helps if you know how things work. And what the law says.

The Idaho Supreme Court did make an interesting and possibly new point about “standing” when it held the Coeur d’Alene Tribe had standing to bring the case. But when it came to deciding this convoluted question of whether the veto was valid or not, it simply recited the law.

Tethered

April 29, 2009

In trying to evaluate the evolving end game of the Idaho Legislature, threatening to become the longest-ever next week, you're finding more immovable objects than irresistible forces.

The Idaho House has adjourned sine die - for the year - or so its majority hopes. That hope will die after three days, since the Idaho Senate is not adjourning, yet, and seems likely not to right away. And since in Idaho neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the approval of the other, the Idaho House will be back for more business. Probably on Monday.

(And yes, we've seen this happen before. The most memorable occasion we recall, from back in the 80s, it was the Senate that tried to adjourn, and was dragged back by the House.)

For all that, we're leaning toward the idea that the Idaho House's take on the sticking point issue - transportation funding - is the side more likely to prevail.

Evidence for this comes from Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter's Capitol for a Day visit to the small farm town of Midvale, the kind of conservative and traditional and Republican kind of place that ordinarily should be Otter's kind of place. Yesterday, however, in the Idaho Statesman's report, "Gov. Butch Otter spent six hours Tuesday fending off accusations he's abandoned rural Idaho and surrendered state sovereignty to the U.S. government."

And that he wants to raise taxes all over the place.

The mood was angry, we'd guess Otter was stunned by the reaction. This really was, literally, exactly Otter's kind of place, what should be about as friendly a piece of real estate as you'd find in Idaho for this kind of governor.

Otter is now offering compromises, one of which was rejected by the House before its attempt at adjournment. We'd guess there will be more attempts at compromise as soon as they return. And this will go on until the House majority gets something it finds acceptable.

The House is tethered into the driver's seat.