Idaho House narrowly passes bill banning legislators from also holding certain local elected offices
The Idaho House on Tuesday passed a bill to ban Idahoans elected to state or federal offices — including the Idaho Legislature — from simultaneously serving in elected city, school or highway district positions.
House Bill 362, sponsored by Rep. Barbara Ehardt, R-Idaho Falls, would automatically vacate local elected offices that officials hold when they swear into elected federal, statewide, or legislative offices.
Several state legislators have served in local offices while in the Idaho Legislature, which is a part-time Legislature that typically only meets during the first few months of the year.
Ehardt's bill is a modified version of a similar bill she brought last year, House Bill 497. That bill narrowly passed the House, by one vote, but did not advance in the Senate.
The Idaho House passed the new bill on a wider 43-27 vote on Tuesday, after about 10 minutes of debate.
Ehardt said she and several other lawmakers see the bill as addressing 'divided loyalty.'
'We really feel like if you're serving here, you should serve here,' Ehardt said. 'It also ends up creating a consolidation of power. And I don't think any of that's ever really good.'
The bill now heads to the Senate for consideration. To become law, Idaho bills must pass the House and Senate, and avoid the governor's veto.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Following concerns from the Idaho Association of Cities about the bill's impact on small communities, Ehardt told the House that the new bill offers several exceptions to the automatic vacancy trigger for officials from small communities, such as for elected positions in:
Cities with less than 1,000 population;
School districts with less than 500 students enrolled; and
Highway districts 'located primarily' in a county with less than 10,000 population.
If passed into law, the bill would take effect July 1, 2026.
Rep. Rick Cheatum, R-Pocatello, serves on Pocatello City Council, and voted against the bill.
Serving in both offices 'has been very advantageous for both the city and my service to the three counties that I serve to have the information and the knowledge that I've obtained in doing both jobs,' he told the House.
'This bill would not affect me, unless I seek re-election to City Council this next year. But I think it's wrong to carve out small cities and say 'It's OK,' and tell folks in bigger communities that 'It's not to serve both ways and give part of your life to your community,'' Cheatum said.
Echoing concerns he raised in a committee hearing on the bill on Friday, Rep. Todd Achilles, D-Boise, argued the bill violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution by treating officials differently based on numbers for small communities that lack an 'empirical justification.'
'The thing that gives me the most pause with this bill — is that we're canceling a citizen's vote. We're overriding the votes of Idahoans who are voting in a school district, highway district or city council because of some arbitrary delineation of the size of those entities,' Achilles said. 'And what that means is that this Legislature is saying 'We know better than those voters.''
As she closed debate on her bill, Ehardt pushed back on that notion.
'There's no voter suppression here. What we're actually asking is that we, as with the rest of the options, if you look through that section, we eliminate the ability to serve in different areas all the time,' she said. 'For example, you cannot serve here — and I know it's a little more extreme, you can't serve here and also serve federally.'
CONTACT US
At least two current Idaho state lawmakers hold local elected offices that could be affected by the bill.
Rep. Cheatum serves on Pocatello City Council. And Rep. Chris Bruce, R-Kuna, serves on the Kuna City Council.
Ehardt was first appointed to the Idaho Legislature in December 2017, after she lost a runoff race for Idaho Falls mayor, Local News 8 reported, and as her first term on Idaho Falls City Council was coming to an end, East Idaho News reported. She won the 2018 general election for the Legislature and is in her fifth legislative term.
Some current and former lawmakers resigned from local elected offices soon after winning state legislative seats.
After being elected to the Idaho Legislature in November 2022, Rep. Dan Garner, R-Clifton, resigned from the West Side school board, the Preston Citizen newspaper reported.
In November 2022, newly elected Rep. Josh Wheeler, R-Ammon, resigned from Ammon City Council — after being elected to the Legislature, East Idaho News reported. That same month, newly elected Sen. Treg Bernt, R-Meridian, resigned from the Meridian City Council after being elected to the Legislature, BoiseDev reported.
In 2021, Bellevue Mayor Ned Burns was appointed to the Legislature as a Democrat, KIVI-TV reported. Former Rep. Burns resigned as mayor in January 2022, the Idaho Mountain Express newspaper reported. He lost his legislative seat in the November 2024 election.
Some former lawmakers have also simultaneously held local elected offices while in the Idaho Legislature.
Former Rep. Thyra Stevenson, a Lewiston Republican who died in 2020, served as a city councilor while in the Legislature. Former Sen. Dan Johnson, a Republican, served as Lewiston's mayor while in the Legislature.
Former Rep. Colin Nash, D-Boise, had a substitute in the Idaho Legislature in 2024 while he served on the Boise City council.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
7 minutes ago
- UPI
Uruguay could become first in Latin America to pass euthanasia laws
If legislation is enacted, Uruguay would become the first country in Latin America with a law that regulates euthanasia. Photo by Lolame/ Pixabay Aug. 14 (UPI) -- Uruguay's Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of Parliament, has approved a bill on so-called "death with dignity" that would regulate euthanasia in cases of incurable illness and extreme suffering. The measure passed 64-29 and heads to the Senate. If enacted, Uruguay would become the first country in Latin America with such legislation. The bill approved by the lower house states that euthanasia may be requested only by adults with full mental capacity who have been diagnosed with a terminal, incurable and irreversible illness that causes unbearable suffering and severely diminishes their quality of life. The measure does not allow assisted suicide. Requests must be made in writing and in person. A treating physician will evaluate the case within three days, followed by an independent second opinion within five days. If the two opinions differ, a medical board will decide within an additional five days. Additionally, the proposal would create an honorary commission to review cases, oversee compliance with the procedure and report to the Health Ministry and Parliament. Violations would be subject to penalties under the Penal Code. During debate in Congress, Health Committee chairman Luis Enrique Gallo said the bill "is about love, humanity and empathy" and about people "with very serious illnesses who are suffering," as well as a Uruguay that would be "once again a leader in rights" if the legislation advances. On the other side, "Never, never can an early death be a human solution," said Deputy Rodrigo Goñi, who called the measure a "disgraceful law." "What a paradox that in the year of the bicentennial, this Parliament is writing, I would say, the saddest page in its history," he added. Parliamentary debate in Uruguay has intensified since 2019, driven by the case of former sports official Fernando Sureda, who defended his right to die with dignity after being diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Polls conducted before the parliamentary debate showed strong public support for the measure. In 2020, 82% of respondents favored legalizing euthanasia, and in 2022 the polling firm Factum found 77% in support. In the Senate, the ruling Broad Front party holds a majority and is the main backer of the measure. Lawmakers are expected to pass it before the end of the year. In Latin America, the regulation of assisted dying remains largely uncharted territory, with progress driven mainly by court rulings rather than laws passed by legislatures. Colombia is the most prominent example. In 1997, the Constitutional Court decriminalized euthanasia for patients with terminal illnesses, and in 2015 it established a mandatory medical protocol. In 2022, the right was expanded to include people with serious, incurable conditions that cause intense suffering. However, legislative regulation has lagged behind, and the debate over conscientious objection and effective access remains unresolved. In 2023, Ecuador legalized euthanasia after a landmark Constitutional Court ruling in favor of Paola Roldán, a patient with ALS. The country is still working on a regulatory framework to implement the decision. Elsewhere in the region, proposals are moving forward more cautiously or face strong political and religious opposition. Chile has been debating a bill on euthanasia and medically assisted dying since 2021. The measure was approved in the Chamber of Deputies, but has stalled in the Senate due to changes in government and pressure from conservative groups. In Argentina, parliamentary debate has seen several failed attempts, though public pressure is growing after high-profile cases that highlight the lack of options for terminally ill patients. Other countries, including Mexico, Peru and Costa Rica, have introduced bills or filed court petitions seeking to recognize the right to die with dignity, but without tangible results.
Time Magazine
7 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
How to Fix America's Gerrymandering Problem
President Donald Trump has thrust the country into a new political battle: mutually assured gerrymandering. And the antidote is what we call 'mutually assured representation.' The current saga began in June, when Trump called for Texas to start a congressional redistricting process in the middle of the decade—rather than after the next census in 2030. Last month, Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott called a special legislative session to replace the state's current House map which would favor his party. Now, Trump's push for mid-decade redistricting in Republican-controlled states appears likely to spread to Missouri, Ohio, and Florida. If this happens, Democrats would have retaliate in the states they control in order to have a chance at winning a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives in 2026. In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul has declared her readiness to 'fight fire with fire.' In California, Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed holding a special election in November for voters to approve a ballot initiative allowing the legislature to redraw the state's congressional map. Read More: 'Time to Stand Down': Newsom Gives Trump Deadline to Call Off Redistricting Plan In Texas, Republicans are claiming that they are entitled to five more congressional seats—even if they receive the exact same number of votes as before. To achieve this, they can redraw the boundaries of the districts that Democrats won in 2024, moving Democratic voters into heavily Republican districts where their votes will not matter, and moving Republican voters into previously Democratic districts so that they can win these seats. In 2024, Republicans in Texas won 25 of the state's 38 seats, and Democrats won 13. With this new map, Republicans could win in 30 of 38 congressional districts. The proposed gerrymander is likely to give Republicans four or five new seats even if Democrats win substantially more votes for Congress than they did in 2025. According to our calculation, this will happen even if there is a five percentage point swing towards Democrats in the 2026 elections. In recent years, just a few congressional seats have determined control of the House, and a flip of just five seats on its own might determine the national result. Partisan gerrymandering makes it harder for voters to hold their representatives accountable. Congressional district elections become uncompetitive. With reelection in the general assured, candidates are focused on catering to their own party base, which tends to be a more extreme subset of their constituents. Through this process, partisan gerrymandering often reduces effective representation in Congress and can play a role in crowding out moderate and independent voters. But here's a twist: President Trump's new wave of extreme gerrymandering may actually backfire, paving the way for electoral reform. Partisan gerrymandering is unpopular with voters, as we've seen repeatedly in recent years. Voters in states such as Michigan, Arizona, Colorado, and New Jersey, have supported nonpartisan redistricting commissions. In 2021, Democrats tried and failed to pass the For the People Act, a bill that would have limited partisan gerrymandering nationwide and implemented non-partisan redistricting commissions in every state. But Republican senators blocked the bill. Gerrymandering reform often fails because only one party makes the necessary reforms. For instance, previous successful anti-gerrymandering measures in states like California and New York created fairer maps in each state—but actually cost the party in power (Democrats in both instances) more seats than the margin determining control of the House in 2024. One proposed solution is bipartisan redistricting commissions. These can fail when the parties cannot agree on a map. For instance, the Virginia commission deadlocked in 2022, leaving the courts to draw the maps. Then there are more radical solutions that effectively blow up the current electoral system as we know it, such as multi-member districts or aproportional representation. But we think it is unrealistic to get rid of a system that has been in place for two hundred and fifty years. Instead, we believe it is possible to make reforms that keep the current electoral system while also overcoming some of its flaws. We've developed a process-based solution that has a number of appealing properties. It's inspired by the problem parents face when dividing a cake between two children. How can they make sure everyone gets an equal slice? One child cuts the cake in two, and the other child chooses between the two pieces. Our approach, which we call the 'Define-Combine Procedure,' splits the map drawing process into two simple stages. First, one party divides the state into twice the number of needed districts—for example, 20 sub-districts for a state that needs 10 congressional seats. Then, the second party pairs those sub-districts into the final 10 districts. The result is a fairer map than either party would have drawn on its own. Instead of mutually assured gerrymandering, this approach leads to mutually assured representation. Read More: Gerrymandering Isn't New—But Now We Have a Solution We used real-world census and election data from 2020 in each state to forecast the results of extreme partisan gerrymandering and the Define-Combine Procedure in every state. In Texas, Republicans could draw a map where they won 30 of 38 congressional seats. If Democrats could unilaterally gerrymander Texas, they could create a map with 28 Democratic and 10 Republican seats. Depending on party control of redistricting in Texas, a whopping 20 seats could change hands. When we used the Define-Combine Procedure, the resulting map would produce 19 Republicans seats and 17 Democratic seats, with the two remaining seats changing hands depending on which party defines and which combines. This result comes much closer to the 53% of the two-party vote that Republicans won in 2020. Scaling nationwide, we estimate that extreme gerrymandering could determine which party holds almost 200 seats, out of the 435 seats in the House. Processes like ours could reduce the advantage that a party can earn just from drawing a map, with outcomes that are less biased and closer to proportional. The trick here is to use the impulse to score more seats for your party as a tool for fairness instead. It's a partisan solution for a partisan problem. One party alone cannot protect voting rights and ensure fair representation. That's why, in 1965, Democrats and Republicans came together to pass the Voting Rights Act—and why they continued to amend and renew it for the next 40 years. But, a series of Supreme Court decisions over the last 12 years have substantially weakened the Voting Rights Act and allowed states to engage in extreme partisan gerrymandering. Now, a case before the court next year is likely to further diminish its remaining provisions. Instead of settling for mutually assured gerrymandering, with less effective representation, reduced accountability, and uncompetitive elections, both parties should unite behind solutions that achieve fairer outcomes nationwide. Such an outcome seems unrealistic right now as tit-for-tat gerrymandering ramps up, but the moment when the dust settles and voters take stock of the damage done may well be the best opportunity to address the scourge of partisan gerrymandering. If we don't seize this opportunity, America will pay the price.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Sherrod Brown to run for U.S. Senate against Jon Husted in 2026, reports say
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — Democrat Sherrod Brown is mounting a return to the U.S. Senate after he was ousted by Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno last year. Ending months of speculation, Brown is entering the race to face off against Republican Sen. Jon Husted in 2026, according to multiple reports on Tuesday citing sources close to the former senator. Brown's decision follows his loss to Moreno last November, which was one of the most expensive races in the nation in 2024. With a majority in the chamber up for grabs, Moreno's win helped Republicans win back control. Watch a previous NBC4 report on Brown's 2024 loss in the video player above. Labor dispute affecting Columbus fire protection 'Should Brown enter the race as Schumer's handpicked candidate he will be starting in the biggest hole of his political career. He has never faced a candidate like Jon Husted,' said Tyson Shepard, spokesperson for Husted's campaign, in a statement to NBC4. 'Brown's slogans will ring hollow as his coalition walks away, tired of the radical policies he's forced to support to appease his coastal bosses in California and New York.' Ohio's former lieutenant governor, Husted was appointed to the U.S. Senate by Gov. Mike DeWine in January to fill the seat vacated by J.D. Vance in the wake of his election to the vice presidency. Husted, who was replaced by former Ohio State football coach Jim Tressel as the state's second-in-command, is running to complete Vance's U.S. Senate term, which runs through 2028. Brown was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006 and survived two reelection campaigns before falling to Moreno. The former senator was also rumored to be eyeing Ohio's 2026 gubernatorial race where former Ohio Health Director Amy Acton stands as the lone Democrat while billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy is earning the Republican nomination after pushing out state Attorney General Dave Yost. He announced in March the creation of the Dignity of Work Institute, his first major project since leaving Capitol Hill. At the time, the former senator said both Republicans and Democrats have ignored workers for years and failed to address issues like low wages, overtime and home ownership. He said he's hopeful this organization will make the issue a higher priority in Washington. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
