Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “Idaho Legislature”

Sounds of silence

April 27, 2009

This isn't a suggestion you'll often see in this space, but nevertheless: The executive and legislative branches in Idaho, if they want to adjourn the legislative session any time remotely soon, need to go behind closed doors and say and do practically nothing publicly.

The problem all sides now have is that they violated the first rule of negotiation: They have have given themselves no room for maneuver or compromise. The one advantage all sides - Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter, the Idaho Senate and the Idaho House - have had, is that they are governed by natural political allies. They have no particular need or desire to damage the other side. The disadvantage is that their respective bottom lines have become so clear that there's no longer any way (so far as we can see) that anyone can win, without someone taking a big fall. The positions have become so hardened that circumstances have become erratic - "bizarre," Senate Majority Leader Bart Davis, R-Idaho Falls, said, and he's right.

Meetings of legislators among themselves and with the governor may be the best hope for finding some way for the loser in this conflict to save as much face as possible. Imagine the governor and his sharpest critics in the legislature locked in a room for eight hours; you'd have to guess they'd come up with something.

But every public statement, every public vote or veto, draws the canyon all the deeper. This session of the Legislature, which has completed nearly all its business, is on track to become the longest ever, as of next week.

Allyn Dingel

April 24, 2009
Jeff Kropf

Allyn Dingel (left) with Daniel Eismann

Not every word approved by vote at the Idaho Legislature is necessarily apt, but these from Senate Concurrent Resolution 111 are: "his good humor, his prodigious memory of persons, times and events, and his unfailing courtesy, honesty and integrity.” Even the order fits well.

Allyn Dingel, an attorney and lobbyist - though that description seems somehow a little off - who died on Thursday, was a veteran of the Idaho Statehouse, an effective participant there and liked across the board. He was a Republican, but not entirely doctrinaire, just as - for an insurance industry advocate - he wasn't wholly doctrinaire about that business either. And he seemed to relish the fact that, by way of his son's marriage, being related to the Democratic Bilyeu family. He also relished the Bilyeus along with, it seemed, almost everyone he knew.

He was never elected to office though you suspect he could have been; he had the right skill set. He loved to talk, and not much was needed to prompt a great stemwinder of a story.

Dingel had a lot of stemwinders to share, and share them he did, and that's our primary memory of him. Over a span of half a century, he was in the middle of a lot of political events, and few of them seemed to escape his recollection. He enriched our understanding of the state that way. And he made the state a better placed in other ways too.

After-effects and Otter

April 22, 2009

When a few years back then-Governor Dirk Kempthorne battled with the Idaho Legislature and dragged it out to a record length, he seemed to emerge strengthened, and the legislature almost a bit chastened. That could still happen in this new squabble over transportation funding, which presently looks to extend the already second-longest-ever session out into May.

The prevailing view in Boise, though, seems to be that Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter isn't likely to get the best of it. That was view voiced across the spectrum and by a number of people who personally and/or philosophically like Otter. Mash their views, and you get a sense that he's picked the wrong battle at the wrong time, and that his legendary personal charm is failing him now.

The Idaho Statesman's Kevin Richert (in a post headlines "Why Butch Otter is losing the battle") offered this: "Otter is contriving a crisis. He has no other option. And he risks political backlash. He risks being seen as the guy who insists on raising taxes during a recession — and who insists on holding the Legislature captive, at a taxpayer cost of $30,000 a day."

Is there political subtext? Of course there is.

From Dennis Mansfield (who, it should be noted, years ago ran in a Republican primary against Otter): "I'm thinking that Governor Otter hoped for a whole heck of a better 'gig' than the one he got in 2006. It's like watching a photocopy of a photocopy of former Gov. Kempthorne's last couple of years in office...only earlier, isn't it? Ahh, the anguish.... Let it be known that I'm startin' to think that Butch positioned his old friend Brad Little as Lt. Gov, with a keen eye on a possible self-exit strategy for 2010...and the waters around him are being 'chummed'."

The question of whether Otter will seek a second term next year remains out. (An opt-out does feel a bit more likely now than, say, six months ago.)

Still. We asked one veteran Republican observer (who counts himself a long-time fan of Otter): Short of dropping out, is there political meaning if Otter loses this battle? He's highly unlikely to lose to a Democrat, right? The Republican agreed with that.

But what about a primary challenge? Suppose Otter got a challenge from a well-established, strong contender who could prospectively run a serious campaign - such as, to pull a name out of the air, House Majority Leader Mike Moyle. Could Otter be vulnerable? The Republican's take: Otter would probably win, but not definitely, and it could well be close.

In Idaho in recent years, few legislative battles have had much political impact in the elections that followed. This one just possibly might.

Trench warfare is joined

April 20, 2009

Ooo . . .kay. The last post, about the possibility of Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter doing some smackdown and drawing a hard line for the lawmakers - if he vetoes a stack of eight key budget bills - needs to be superseded. This morning, the vetoes were something he said he might do on Thursday. This afternoon, he did it - the bills are vetoed.

Legislative reaction seems to be as you might expect: They're not happy, and the operating majority in the House - which is the rampart against Otter's transportation request - sounds as if it is determined to hang in there. Which means, since there are no budget bills in operation, that both sides have locked into trench warfare.

Trench warfare is a matter of attrition, of patience, of holding out longer than the other guy. In this case, since the governor is a full timer who reports to the work every day whatever happens, and since the legislators are part-timers who have other work to do, the advantage seems to lie with the governor. That suggests that legislators are the ones to cave, except that they did that before, in the term of Governor Dirk Kempthorne, and they may loathe to let this become a pattern.

Do they have any options, any edge? That's unclear, but here's one thought (and don't count this as a prediction they'll try to do it).

The two houses of the legislature cannot adjourn, in effect, for more than three days at a time. But suppose they did that - meet in pro forma, quorum-satisfying, sessions briefly once every three days. They could keep on doing that for quite a while, especially since so many legislators live within an hour's drive or so of the statehouse. They could keep doing that for months.

In July, a new fiscal year begins, and agencies - all of them - will need an operating budget. Imagine a game of fiscal chicken running up to June 30 . . .

The mind boggles.

The fork in the outlet

April 10, 2009
Otter

Butch Otter

Title of this post refers, as viewers of "Lost" may recognize, is the nickname assigned by its producers to the upcoming season-ending big deal. It also may apply to the immediate situation at the Idaho Statehouse.

Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter allowed today as how he's frustrated by the legislature, and he has ample reason. (And this week's are far from his first frustrations.) As the Idaho Statesman pointed out, "On Thursday alone, various parts of the Legislature rejected some of his plans on transportation funding, and on spending federal stimulus money."

There is the possibility, albeit a thin one, that the legislature could wrap up business by the end of next week. Another week or even two would be a better bet. But they could be in session a lot longer, because Otter could keep them there. A key quote from the governor: "All you've got to do is look back, if you've got any historical memory. There's lots of things the governor can do."

You don't have to reach back especially far, either, just to 2003. That year, the legislature kept rejecting transportation plans offered by Governor Dirk Kempthorne (does this sound familiar?). Kempthorne couldn't force them to pass them. But he could veto budget bills, as he did in an eight-pack one memorable day, and budget resolution is the one significant thing the legislature has to do before leaving town. The two sides endured an angry standoff for weeks, until after 118 days on May 3, the legislators finally caved.

Otter could do something similar. Its not something anyone really wants. But his comments today leave no doubt: It's on the table. Message to legislators: Don't buy any non-refundable plane tickets any time soon.

Busy day

March 23, 2009
statehouse

The Idaho Legislature is back up to speed. With parameters set in the budget and tax discussion, lawmakers are rolling again. Today was an excellent day to get a sense of what's going on at the session.

And there's a good place to look for the rundown. Betsy Russell, who blogs (and, uh, writes news stories as well) from the Idaho Legislature for the Spokane Spokesman-Review, has 13 separate posts on mostly separate topics at the legislature today.

So what happened? Among the highlights:

The budget committee (the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee) [context] set the budget for the state Department of Education, approving money for a state data system.

It cut matching money for Idaho Public Television for translator stations.

It zeroed-out the Idaho Rural Partnership.

It zeroed-out the Idaho Women's Commission.

It turned down a proposal to study historic barns around the state.

The House Education Committee voted to permanently end state funding of school field trips.

A committee moved ahead with major changes to the state liquor license system.

The House passed, 51-17, a request that the federal government "cease and desist" invading the state's sovereignty. Specifics were not spelled out, which doesn't matter since the measure is a declaration only and has no practical effect.

A busy day at the Idaho Legislature. Best guess at present is another three to four weeks to go until adjournment.

Felony protection

March 20, 2009
Hart

Phil Hart

Idaho House Bill 139 may not be going anywhere; since it was introduced on February 16 it has stayed in the House Resources & Conservation Committee. But you have to wonder how thoroughly Representative Phil Hart, R-Athol, thought this throught before he had it introduced:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, at such time as the Canadiangray wolf population exceeds one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the population objectives identified in the wolf conservation and management plan for the state of Idaho, according to statistics maintained by the Idaho department of fish and game, and a Canadian gray wolf causes the death of a person within the state of Idaho, any person who protects Canadian gray wolves shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding five (5) years, or by fine not exceeding fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), or by both such fine and imprisonment.

That's the full substantive text. The official purpose is noted as, "The purpose of this legislation is to identify which individual or individuals are to be held responsible for criminal prosecution should a Canadian gray wolf kill a person."

So . . . it would be a felony to protect a wolf that has killed a person . . . or to protect wolves as a group? Would that include making felons of environmental activists who debate the law or regulation on the subject? The bill doesn't include any definitions.

Explaining (to some extent) in Res & Con, Hart said that "this
proposed legislation deals with wolves and will hold people accountable for wolf attacks under the wolf management plan. He reported that people who live in rural areas have been denied these rights. . . . In the discussion on the motion, Rep. Hart responded to a question regarding records of wolf attacks on people in Idaho. He explained that studies have been done in other areas and the criteria is rigid and an eye witness is required to report a killing."

Obviously a major problem. According to WikiAnswers.com: "Actually, there have been NO documented killings by wolves. Like any large carnivore, they deffinately have the means to kill a human... they can bring down moose. Usually, though, they like to stay away from humans as much as possible except for occasionally killing livestock." If anyone does know of a documented instance, let us know . . .

“Still at a funding crisis in transportation”

March 19, 2009

Probably shouldn't have been a big surprise, but the reports indicate that the core transportation strategic planners - mainly out of the office of Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter - really were thrown by the House rejection today of his proposed gas tax increase. Evidently, a number of House members were surprised too.

The debate was fairly closely split between the two sides but the vote wasn't close, at 27-43, with Democrats making some of the strongest anti-tax arguments. (Ponder that a moment: small-l libertarian Otter pushing a tax increase that the Democrats said was unaffordable.) Republican leadership couldn't push it through.

Representative Ken Roberts, R-Donnelly, was quoted as saying, “I’ll continue to work with the governor’s office to see if there’s another proposal that would be acceptable, because the problem is not going to go away." It isn't. But keep watch and see if, in the days ahead, there are attempts to re-frame it - maybe as indicating that road spending, apart from what's already being paid for, is something that might be shifted toward the back burner.

The strange real world

February 25, 2009

Legislating can be difficult, but Idaho Representative Stephen Hartgen, R-Twin Falls, who in a former life as a newspaper publisher once managed a large web site operation, ought to have been able to see this one coming from a couple of mile off.

The basic concept behind House Bill 82 seems clear enough: "Current Idaho Code 18­6710 prohibits the use of the telephone to harass or annoy another person. RS 18369C1 would extend this prohibition to harassment via emails, text messaging, internet posts or personal blogs. Communications would be covered by the current penalties of a misdemeanor in the first offense and as a felony in the second or subsequent offense. RS 18369C1 provides examples of internet sites to be covered, and definoriginates in or is received in the state of Idaho".

If telephony and the Internet were the same thing, that might work. But the members of the House Judiciary Committee, where you might not ordinarily expect lots of high-tech expertise, spotted the flaws pretty quickly. From reporter Betsy Russell's blog:

Rep. Bill Killen, an attorney, asked Hartgen if the bill would cover his accessing a blog from Indiana that proved to contain material he found offensive. Hartgen said, “I think that would be a matter for the prosecutor to decide.” Rep. Raul Labrador, also an attorney, then said, “If it depends, I’m voting no. … If it depends, I have a real problem with this statute.” Hartgen said, “I think it would depend on what the prosecutor’s interpretation is. … That doesn’t really change, whether it’s Internet or telephone.” Responded Labrador, “But there is a huge difference, because the telephone message is directed at me,” while the blog is just posted in cyberspace.

Rep. Phil Hart, R-Athol, posed a hypothetical about a 17-year-old girl and a 19-year-old boy who have consensual sex, take explicit photos, then break up, and then one sends the other the photos. “In this committee we deal with the real world, and the real world can be strange,” Hart said. “Where’s the line between a crime and consensual behavior?” Hart also asked how many people would end up in Idaho’s prison system if Hartgen’s bill became law. Rep. Lynn Luker, R-Boise, an attorney, asked Hartgen for a definition of profane language.

Is the use of the Internet "to annoy, terrify, threaten, intimidate, harass or offend" a real problem? Yes. It is. But this kind of problem grows out of a new kind of technology, new uses and approaches. And legal responses to it will probably have to grow similarly, out of new ideas and approaches.