Idaho House passes bill banning government and school mask mandates
The Republican-controlled Idaho House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday preventing the state, public schools, institutions of higher education, government officials, local units of government and health districts from mandating the use of masks to slow the spread of an infectious disease.
Rep. Robert Beiswenger, R-Horseshoe Bend, sponsored House Bill 32.
'This simply prohibits government employees, government officials, from imposing mask mandates for the purpose of virus infectious disease transmission – from forcing that on citizens,' Beiswenger said during debate on the House floor Wednesday.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
'This bill increases the amount of freedom Idahoans will have,' Beiswenger added.
The state of Idaho never had a mask mandate, and it has been years since school districts, heath districts and local governments required masks to protect against the spread of COVID-19.
The bill states that it does not apply to hospitals and health care facilities. There are also exceptions in the bill for people working in health care settings, or people working around hazardous materials and in industrial settings where a face covering is mandatory for protection.
Rep. Rick Cheatum, R-Pocatello, voted against the bill after expressing concern it prevents local schools and governments from making local decisions.
In addition to serving in the Idaho Legislature, Cheatum is a member of the Pocatello City Council.
'This bill is another preemption of local authority,' Cheatum said. 'We pass a bill like this, and who knows what we may be facing in the future at the local level. Right now, there's an outbreak of tuberculosis in the center part of our country, and masks are being recommended to protect those people.'
Rep. Mark Sauter, R-Sandpoint, voted against the bill after asking Beiswenger how hard it would be to change the law if the state ran into a problem in the future where masks were needed.
Following a short debate, the Idaho House voted 51-17 to pass House Bill 32.
Nine house Republicans joined all eight Democrats who were present on the floor Wednesday in voting against the bill.
House Bill 32 heads next to the Idaho Senate for consideration.
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
The Hill
6 minutes ago
- The Hill
Texas Democrat says she was threatened with arrest after escort lost her on trail
A Texas state House Democrat said she was threatened with arrest after an officer assigned to follow her lost track of her on a walking trail. Texas state Rep. Sheryl Cole (D) said in a post on X on Tuesday that an escort from the Texas Department of Public Safety, whom she said 'was forced upon me to track my every movement,' lost track of her on the trail, became angry and 'made a scene' in front of her constituents. 'While a little shaken up from the incident, I remain undeterred by this intimidation tactic by House Republicans to have a 24/7 state police presence to intimidate me and my colleagues,' Cole said. Cole's account of the incident comes as a fellow Democratic state representative, Nicole Collier, has chosen to stay on the floor of the state House chamber for more than 24 hours rather than having a law enforcement officer shadow her. After the state House Democrats returned to the Lone Star State on Monday, ending their two-week out-of-state stint to prevent Republicans from passing a new map, state Speaker Dustin Burrows (R) declared that those who came back would have an officer with them to ensure they didn't leave the state again. Collier chose to stay in the state House overnight instead and told MSNBC's Ali Vitali in an interview that she would stay 'as long as it takes.' 'At the moment that the directive was issued, I felt like it was wrong. It's just wrong to require grown people to get a permission slip to roam about freely. So I resisted,' she said. Cole said she stands in solidarity with Collier, who has 'refused to go along with this charade.' 'We will not be intimidated by this, and history will remember this,' she said. The Texas state legislature is expected to approve a new map as soon as this week, with enough Democrats back in the state for the body to conduct business.
The Hill
6 minutes ago
- The Hill
There is a solution to America's gerrymandering problem
The redistricting war going on across the country began with the president asking — or, as some see it, directing — Texas to redraw its congressional map to give the GOP as many as five additional House seats in the 2026 midterm elections. Given that the party that holds the White House typically loses House seats in the midterms, and with a thin GOP majority after the 2024 election, the president is looking for any advantage to hold the House. This action has elicited outrage among Democrats, pushing the most populous state, California, to redraw its map. Several other states, including Ohio, Florida and Indiana, are also investigating the possibility of redrawing their maps, in an all-out gerrymander fest to squeeze every last seat out of Congress. Yet the maps drawn after the 2020 census were already well gerrymandered. Of the 435 total seats, just 36 were deemed competitive in 2022, defined as winners determined by a margin of victory below 5 percent. In 2024, the number of competitive seats jumped to 43. Though the problem appears to be the gerrymandering of congressional maps, the real problem is how representation is determined. The popular vote in each congressional district determines its winner, but the way the population of each state is dissected into discrete districts partitions the popular vote across each state. Since each district seat is represented by a winner-take-all vote, the design of each state's congressional map effectively determines how its voters are represented in Congress. Take, for example, Massachusetts. Its nine congressional seats are all represented by Democrats. In the 2024 election, five of the seats were uncontested. Among the four contested races, the closest margin of victory was 13 percent. Yet in the presidential race, 36 percent of the votes cast were for Donald Trump, the same percentage that voted for the Republican candidates in the four contested seats. This begs the question: Should these 36 percent of voters have some GOP representation? A similar situation occurred in Oklahoma, with all five of its congressional seats held by Republications, even though 32 percent of the votes cast were for Kamala Harris. Given that computational redistricting can draw House maps that are either maximally gerrymandered, provide sensible voter representation, or anything in between, there is no need for maps to be drawn by redistricting commissions, whether they are independent or made up of partisan legislators. The necessary mapping criteria specified by state laws can now be incorporated into mapping algorithms. Examples of such criteria include compactness of districts or preserving communities of interest. The only role for redistricting commissions is to specify the desired bias of the map. Gerrymandered maps demonstrate that we no longer have representation of the people but of the parties, making Congress a de facto House of Mis-Representatives. At the core, the problem is how members of the House are elected, and indirectly, the Electoral College. As long as voter preferences are packed into discrete ongressional district seats, the current gerrymandering wars will continue to discount and ignore voters. In fact, Trump told a group in 2024 during his campaign that they would not need to vote again if he were elected. Despite not knowing precisely what he had in mind, he may indeed be correct, given that representation of voters is mostly predetermined. Is there a solution? Continue to hold elections with congressional districts. However, the number of seats won by each party should be allocated by each party's state popular vote. Then the top vote getters, either in absolute number or in percentage of votes won, across all the districts from each party are assigned seats, up to the number of seats won by the party. This means that all the representatives in each state would be at-large, representing all the people of the state. A formula for rounding would be needed to determine which party gets the partial seat fraction, much like how congressional apportionment is used after each census to determine the number of House seats in each state. With such a system, in Massachusetts, Republicans would have won two congressional seats and Democrats would have won seven. In Oklahoma, Republicans would have won four seats and Democrats would have won one. Such a process would neutralize the impact of gerrymandering, since each state's haul of seats would be determined by the state popular vote, giving every eligible voter the added incentive to cast their vote. The net effect of such a system would likely not yield a difference in the overall number of House seats held by each party. It would, however, redistribute party representation across all 50 states. Most importantly, it would neutralize the benefits of gerrymandering to the parties, since each state's popular vote would determine representation. —Such a new system would require a change in the Constitution something that is highly unlikely in this vitriolic political environment. Yet without such a change, gerrymandering will continue to erode the influence of voters and elevate the power of parties. Texas's actions to redraw their congressional map midterm has unleashed a war on democracy. More accurately, it has taken gerrymander politics to unprecedented levels. The final outcome will be less voter representation and more partisan party politics. What the Texas 'seat steal' effort demonstrates is that, in the eyes of parties, voters are no longer relevant. Every voter in the 2026 midterm elections who is disgusted with such disrespect should write in an unnamed candidate, 'Other' — if such a name won a seat, it will send a strong message that gerrymandering is no longer acceptable, that the current toxic mapping system is shattered beyond repair, and a new model for earning representation is needed. Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a computer science professor in the Grainger College of Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. As a data scientist, he uses his expertise in risk-based analytics to address problems in public policy. He is the founder of the .
The Hill
6 minutes ago
- The Hill
IRS broke rules in firing probationary employees, Treasury Department watchdog finds
The IRS broke its own rules when it fired thousands of employees earlier this year on the orders of the Trump administration, the Treasury Department's internal watchdog agency found last week. The terminated employees were not given proper notice, nor was their performance taken into account when getting rid of them, the office of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) concluded in a report released on Thursday. 'Internal procedures were not followed when sending the termination notices. Policies and procedures require the IRS to give probationary employees a 30-day notice and consider their performance prior to terminating them,' TIGTA found. In February, the IRS fired 6,700 employees designated as probationary, meaning they were working for the agency on a trial basis prior to becoming full staff members. The hires were part of a large-scale overhaul of the agency initiated by Democrats in 2022 as part of their Inflation Reduction Act. That legislation awarded the agency an initial $80 billion funding boost to be spent over the subsequent decade. More than half of the initial money — $45 billion — was earmarked for extra tax enforcement, specifically increased audits for wealthy Americans. The IRS even set up a new division to go after complex partnerships, or nested legal entities that can shelter funds that are owed to the government. Auditing sophisticated companies requires skilled staff, and the IRS had just started hiring a first tranche of personnel to make that happen, many of whom were in their trial period at the agency when they got canned by the Trump administration. When they got fired, they were told it was for performance reasons, but TIGTA found on Thursday that the agency didn't take performance into account when issuing pink slips. 'Termination letters cited performance as a reason for termination; however, the IRS did not consider individual performance when deciding which employees to terminate,' TIGTA concluded. The Trump administration has declared an all-out bureaucratic war on public sector unions, firing employees at many different government agencies through a special cost-cutting panel. Last week, courts gave the go-ahead to the administration's plan to do away with collective bargaining rights at a number of agencies. It's not clear whether TIGTA's report presents a legal vulnerability for the Trump administration, but public sector unions are showing the resolve to fight for their jobs. 'Our friends with the VA have had their union contract terminated. They've had their rights to collective bargaining stripped. This is, we think, an illegal action,' Daniel Scharpenburg, vice president of the National Treasury Employee Union Chapter 66, said in a social media video posted last week, encouraging fellow union members to rally. Republicans worked throughout the back half of the Biden administration to kill the IRS funding boost, clawing back an initial $20 billion before eventually freezing the rest of the audit funding through what was likely a stealth negotiating maneuver. Biden administration officials told The Hill last year they had known about that loophole in the appropriations process and worked to prevent rescissions with requests to Congress. House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Richard Neal (D-Mass.) told The Hill last year that the freeze was likely due to a mistake.
