Boise adds two official flags in latest jab at Legislature's new law
The Legislature earlier this year banned most flags from flying on government property, but left an exception for 'the official flag of a governmental entity.'
Cheers, boos and expletives erupted from the crowd during the rowdy meeting. Five of Boise's council members voted yes on the resolution — saying that everyone was welcome and safe in Boise. Luci Willits, the lone no vote, said she felt the city had to uphold the law and that constituents didn't want the change.
'I know that people who identify with this flag want to be seen,' Willits told the waiting crowd inside the meeting. 'I want you to know that I see you, even if I disagree with having this be an official flag.'
The city also designated a National Donate Life Month banner as an official flag, meaning Boise now has three official flags. The resolution itself says an official flag is any one the mayor declares as official.
Some council members focused on the economic and emotional benefits of having a pro-LGBTQ+ city.
Council President Colin Nash said he empathized with people who are afraid of being open to the world.
'There are so many folks that live lives of quiet desperation, every single day in our community, who carry with them a secret,' Nash said. 'I hope just once that the city of Boise's flag, that someone will see that and know that they are not alone.'
As the officials spoke, audience members interrupted and argued among themselves, including complaints that the city didn't take public comment on the change. The resolution was on the consent agenda, which typically doesn't include time for comments.
Over an hour before the meeting, dozens of protesters and observers were filling up the spaces between police barricades in front of City Hall.
Garrett Richardson, who said he identifies as gay, came to the meeting to speak in opposition. He said he has voted Democrat but feels politically homeless right now, and he views the flag as signaling support for liberal causes more than the LGBTQ+ community.
He said Boise should focus on concrete actions to help LGBTQ+ Boiseans, like expanding sexually transmitted infection prevention and treatment services.
'I was born and raised here and I experienced a ton of homophobia in school,' Richardson said. 'I don't think any flag could ever fix that.'
Other people came to the event to show support for LGTBQ+ children.
At least one other city in Idaho is trying to potentially find a way around the new law, which also allows for displaying the U.S. flag, flags of any state, flags of any U.S. military branches and units, the POW/MIA flag, flags of Indian tribes and flags of Idaho public schools, colleges and universities.
An hour after Boise's city council meeting started, Bonners Ferry councilors gathered to discuss their longtime display of the Canadian flag. The flag is a 'sign of friendship' and a recognition of Canadian tourism's impact on the economy, Bonners Ferry City Attorney Andrakay Pluid wrote in a memo.
Once the law was in place, the Idaho Attorney General's Office contacted Bonners Ferry asking the city to take down the Canadian flag, according to the online council agenda. The Attorney General's Office declined to comment.
Pluid presented three options to the council: The two simplest options were to keep flying the flag and risk a lawsuit or stop flying it. However, the city also could use part of the law allowing flags to commemorate special occasions and declare a year-round 'special occasion' recognizing the relationship with Canada, the city attorney said.
'It's an untested issue,' Pluid wrote in a memo to the council.
It was unclear at the time of publication what action Bonners Ferry would take.
Cities have been grappling with the law since it went into effect April 3, in part because it has no enforcement mechanism. Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador also sent a letter to the city of Boise warning of potential consequences. Recently, the city announced several lawyers had volunteered to represent the city pro bono if there's legal action about the flags.
Thad Butterworth, chairman of the Ada County Republicans, told the Statesman he thought the bill was 'reasonable' in its attempt to eliminate partisanship from government entities. However, Butterworth said he was concerned that legislators hadn't included a way to enforce the law. Several Ada County Republicans were planning to attend the meeting unofficially, he said.
Even as the council members moved on to more mundane business, protesters kept arguing outside. A local right-wing provocateur tried to burn a Pride flag on a cross, but ultimately left. People hurled insults as the police started taking down the barricades.
Eventually the crowd dispersed. All that was left were chalk messages, reading 'Rainbows are 4 everyone' and 'love wins.'
Earlier, Becky Prew had sat among the sidewalk designs, wearing a pride shirt. She came to support her LGBTQ+ son, who had moved away from Idaho because of homophobia.
During the Legislative session, photographs given to legislators on the House floor included the Pride flags at Boise City Hall.
'I think it's unfortunate. I mean I don't think we're a city that should be so divided. We were never like this,' Prew said. 'I don't understand why (LGBTQ+ people) are the target of this.'
Boise-area sheriff criticizes a new Idaho law he says police can't enforce
Boise is still flying Pride flag. Citing new law, Idaho AG sends warning letter
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
38 minutes ago
- New York Post
Craven and dishonest: Behind the Toronto bid to censor an Oct. 7 documentary
The folks in charge of the Toronto International Film Festival now claim they were never going to prevent the screening of a documentary that tells the truth about Hamas' horrific Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks — but the disclaimers are so hedged (and dishonest) that you still can't be sure the show will go on. First and foremost is the absurd excuse that TIFF's lawyers supposedly thought the filmmaker needed 'legal clearance' to use clips of the savagery as filmed and livestreamed by the terrorists on their GoPros. That is, permission from Hamas to use footage of the terrorists mauling women and slaughtering innocents. Nonsense: Several other movies have already used such footage; one of them, 'We Will Dance Again,' won an Emmy in June! Rather, this was obviously a wormy way to get out of showing Canadian director Barry Avrich's 'The Road Between Us: The Ultimate Rescue,' which shows how retired Israeli Gen. Noam Tibon rescued his family and other survivors of the Oct. 7 attacks. Because the truth might make viewers more sympathetic to Israel. Of course the TIFF folks carefully didn't complain about that, though they did say the risk of protests against the movie might also make it impossible to show. (We've also heard suggestions that festival staff were threatening to walk off the job if the documentary wasn't scrubbed.) Sorry: Admitting you'll censor in the face of such threats makes a mockery of TIFF's vow that 'we will defend artistic excellence and artistic freedom.' And falling back on spurious worries about terrorists' intellectual-property rights is still blatantly knuckling under to the hecklers' veto. Cameron Bailey, the TIFF CEO, denies 'censorship' was ever in play, claims he's 'committed' to showing the film and has his legal team 'considering all options available' to somehow show it after all. We understand not wanting to admit that Israel-haters are running the show at your festival, but Bailey's careful hedging shows that he's not even certain he can defy the antisemites' wishes.


NBC News
39 minutes ago
- NBC News
Man accused of killing Minnesota lawmaker is facing new state charges
MINNEAPOLIS — A Minnesota man accused of killing a top Democratic state lawmaker and wounding another while pretending to be a police officer is facing new and upgraded state charges after a fresh indictment was announced Thursday, just a week after he pleaded not guilty in federal court. Vance Boelter now faces two charges of first-degree murder, four counts of attempted first-degree murder and charges of impersonating a police officer and animal cruelty for shooting one family's dog. Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said the charges 'reflect the weight of Mr. Boelter's crimes.' But the state case will continue to take a back seat to the federal case against Vance Boelter where he could face more serious consequences. He was indicted July 15 on six counts of murder, stalking and firearms violations. The murder charges could carry the federal death penalty although prosecutors haven't decided yet whether to seek that while the maximum penalty on the state charges is life in prison because Minnesota doesn't have the death penalty. Boelter pleaded not guilty in federal court on Aug. 7. Moriarty had requested the state prosecution proceed first, but federal prosecutors are using their authority to press their case, according to Daniel Borgertpoepping, Hennepin County Attorney's Office's public information officer. The full extent of the political violence that officials said Boelter, 58, intended to inflict in the early morning hours of June 14 after months of planning alarmed the community. The Green Isle, Minnesota, resident was arrested a day later following a massive search involving local, state and federal authorities. 'The damage done to the victims — those with us, those who were taken from us and to our entire community — has opened wounds that will never heal,' Moriarty said in a statement. The Hennepin County Attorney's Office initially issued a warrant charging Boelter with two counts of second-degree murder for allegedly posing as a police officer and fatally shooting former Democratic House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, at their home. Boelter, authorities said, wore a uniform and a mask and yelled that he was police and told these lawmakers that he was an officer. Authorities also originally charged Boelter with two counts of attempted second-degree murder, alleging he shot state Sen. John Hoffman, a Democrat, and his wife, Yvette. But officials said when the charges were filed to secure the warrant that they would likely be updated to first-degree murder charges. They also added two additional attempted murder charges Thursday. Federal prosecutors already revealed details of their investigation showing Boelter had driven to two other legislators' homes in the roughly hour and a half timeline. Moriarity charged Boelter with trying to kill one of those lawmakers because he went to her door in the same way he approached the Hortmans' and Hoffmans' homes. She said it doesn't matter that Rep Kristin Bahner wasn't home. The state case against Boelter shows an application for public defender was filed on June 16, but one has yet to be assigned. Public defenders are typically assigned in Minnesota at a defendant's first appearance, which Boelter did not have before being taken into federal custody, Borgertpoepping said in a text message. Moriarty also announced last week that she would not seek reelection next year. This spring the federal Justice Department opened an investigation of Moriarty's office after she directed her staff to consider racial disparities as one factor when negotiating plea deals. Moriarty, a former public defender, was elected in 2022 as the Minneapolis area and the country were still reeling from the death of George Floyd, a Black man pinned under the knee of a white officer for 9 1/2 minutes. She promised to make police more accountable and change the culture of a prosecutors' office that she believed had long overemphasized punishment without addressing the root causes of crime.


Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Scoop: ActBlue makes it easier for independents to tap donors
ActBlue, the online donation platform that makes it easy for Democratic candidates to hoover up small-dollar donations, is making it easier for independents to do the same. Why it matters: The new rules allow ActBlue to include independent candidates on a "case-by-case" basis. That change can give independents access to ActBlue earlier in the campaign cycle—and even if a declared Democrat is in the race. Republicans both fear and admire ActBlue for the ease with which it allows candidates to translate online enthusiasm into real-world dollars. President Trump also wants to investigate it for "illegal 'straw donor' and foreign contributions in American elections." A spokesperson for ActBlue confirmed the changes, which were made earlier in August. Zoom out: In the 2026 cycle, three independent candidates are seeking to challenge GOP senators in deep red states, but without a "D" next to their name. Two of them are former Democrats. The third, Dan Osborn, who has always been registered "unaffiliated," gave Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) a scare in 2024 by running as an independent. He's plotting a second run, this time against Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.). Earlier this summer Todd Achilles, a former Democratic Idaho state representative, declared himself an unaffiliated voter and announced a challenge to Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho). And in South Dakota, Brian Bengs, who ran for the Senate as a Democrat in 2022, is challenging Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), as an independent. Zoom in: ActBlue will now review independent or third-party candidates for inclusion on a "case-by-case basis, with the following criteria as major factors," according to its website. "Whether a Democratic candidate is in the race." "Whether the candidate has a Democratic Party endorsement." "Whether the candidate can demonstrate they align with Democratic policies and priorities." The old guidelines had stricter requirements. Independents could qualify by having a "proven record of caucusing with Democrats," which would have covered former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.). The old rules did allow for independent candidates to access the platform if no other Democrat were in the race and if they received an "official Democratic Party endorsement." Between the lines: The old rules would have prevented independents like Beng and Achilles from tapping the platform, given that there are already Democrats in both races. What they're saying: Republicans are convinced the change is a ruse to give incognito Democrats access to progressive donors without admitting they're Democrats.