Under Idaho bill advancing to House, lawmakers couldn't hold local office simultaneously
Idahoans elected to state or federal offices — including the Idaho Legislature — would be banned from simultaneously serving in elected city, school or highway district positions, under a bill state lawmakers advanced to the House on Friday.
House Bill 362, 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.
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 State Affairs Committee advanced the bill to the House floor Friday.
'This change will ensure that whoever, whatever office we're serving in, we're giving our attention to that office. We are serving … the office in which we're elected, and we are doing the best for that group of citizens — without any weighted or divided attentions,' Ehardt told the committee.
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.
But the new bill offers several exceptions to the automatic vacancy trigger for officials from small communities, such as for elected positions in:
Cities with a population of less than 1,000 people;
School districts with less than 500 students enrolled; and
Highway districts 'located primarily' in a county with a population less than 10,000 people.
The House State Affairs Committee's two Democrats — Reps. Brooke Green, D-Boise, and Todd Achilles, D-Boise — voted against advancing the bill.
Achilles argued the bill violates multiple constitutional protections and will be challenged in court. If the bill passed, he said the Legislature would lose 'the perspectives of local communities.'
'And by restricting this to certain cities or school districts or highway district based on their size, this creates an unequal application of the law, which violates the Equal Protection Clause — by treating similarly situated office holders differently based on this arbitrary definition of what is a small or a large community,' Achilles said.
If passed into law, the bill would take effect July 1, 2026.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
33 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's friendly-to-frustrated relationship with Putin takes the spotlight at the Alaska summit
WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump's summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday could be a decisive moment for both the war in Ukraine and the U.S. leader's anomalous relationship with his Russian counterpart. Trump has long boasted that he's gotten along well with Putin and spoken admiringly of him, even praising him as 'pretty smart' for invading Ukraine. But in recent months, he's expressed frustrations with Putin and threatened more sanctions on his country. At the same time, Trump has offered conflicting messages about his expectations for the summit. He has called it 'really a feel-out meeting' to gauge Putin's openness to a ceasefire but also warned of 'very severe consequences' if Putin doesn't agree to end the war. For Putin, Friday's meeting is a chance to repair his relationship with Trump and unlace the West's isolation of his country following its invasion of Ukraine 3 1/2 years ago. He's been open about his desire to rebuild U.S.-Russia relations now that Trump is back in the White House. The White House has dismissed any suggestion that Trump's agreeing to sit down with Putin is a win for the Russian leader. But critics have suggested that the meeting gives Putin an opportunity to get in Trump's ear to the detriment of Ukraine, whose leader was excluded from the summit. 'I think this is a colossal mistake. You don't need to invite Putin onto U.S. soil to hear what we already know he wants," said Ian Kelly, a retired career foreign service officer who served as the U.S. ambassador to Georgia during the Obama and first Trump administrations. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a longtime Russia hawk and close ally of Trump's, expressed optimism for the summit. 'I have every confidence in the world that the President is going to go to meet Putin from a position of strength, that he's going to look out for Europe and Ukrainian needs to end this war honorably,' Graham wrote on social media. A look back at the ups and downs of Trump and Putin's relationship: Russia questions during the 2016 campaign Months before he was first elected president, Trump cast doubt on findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian government hackers had stolen emails from Democrats, including his opponent Hillary Clinton, and released them in an effort to hurt her campaign and boost Trump's. In one 2016 appearance, he shockingly called on Russian hackers to find emails that Clinton had reportedly deleted. 'Russia, if you're listening,' Trump said, 'I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.' Questions about his connections to Russia dogged much of his first term, touching off investigations by the Justice Department and Congress and leading to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller, who secured multiple convictions against Trump aides and allies but did not establish proof of a criminal conspiracy between Moscow and the Trump campaign. These days, Trump describes the Russia investigation as an affinity he and Putin shared. 'Putin went through a hell of a lot with me,' Trump said earlier this year. 'He went through a phony witch hunt where they used him and Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia, ever hear of that deal?' Putin in 2019 mocked the investigation and its ultimate findings, saying, "A mountain gave birth to a mouse.' 'He just said it's not Russia' Trump met with Putin six times during his first term, including a 2018 summit in Helsinki, when Trump stunned the world by appearing to side with an American adversary on the question of whether Russia meddled in the 2016 election. 'I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today," Trump said. 'He just said it's not Russia. I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be." Facing intense blowback, Trump tried to walk back the comment a full 24 hours later. But he raised doubt on that reversal by saying other countries could have also interfered. Putin referred to Helsinki summit as 'the beginning of the path' back from Western efforts to isolate Russia. He also made clear that he had wanted Trump to win in 2016. 'Yes, I wanted him to win because he spoke of normalization of Russian-U.S. ties,' Putin said. 'Isn't it natural to feel sympathy to a person who wanted to develop relations with our country?" Trump calls Putin 'pretty smart' after invasion of Ukraine The two leaders kept up their friendly relationship after Trump left the White House under protest in 2021. After Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, Trump described the Russian leader in positive terms. 'I mean, he's taking over a country for $2 worth of sanctions. I'd say that's pretty smart,' Trump said at his Mar-a-Lago resort. In a radio interview that week, he suggested that Putin was going into Ukraine to 'be a peacekeeper.' Trump repeatedly said the invasion of Ukraine would never have happened if he had been in the White House — a claim Putin endorsed while lending his support to Trump's false claims of election fraud. 'I couldn't disagree with him that if he had been president, if they hadn't stolen victory from him in 2020, the crisis that emerged in Ukraine in 2022 could have been avoided,' he said. Trump also repeatedly boasted that he could have the fighting 'settled' within 24 hours. Through much of his campaign, Trump criticized U.S. support for Ukraine and derided Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a 'salesman' for persuading Washington to provide weapons and funding to his country. Revisiting the relationship Once he became president, Trump stopped claiming he'd solve the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. In March, he said he was "being a little bit sarcastic' when he said that. Since the early days of Trump's second term, Putin has pushed for a summit while trying to pivot from the Ukrainian conflict by emphasizing the prospect of launching joint U.S.-Russian economic projects, among other issues. 'We'd better meet and have a calm conversation on all issues of interest to both the United States and Russia based on today's realities,' Putin said in January. In February, things looked favorable for Putin when Trump had a blowup with Zelenskyy at the White House, berating him as 'disrespectful." In late March, Trump still spoke of trusting Putin when it came to hopes for a ceasefire, saying, 'I don't think he's going to go back on his word." But a month later, as Russian strikes escalated, Trump posted a public and personal plea on his social media account: 'Vladimir, STOP!' He began voicing more frustration with the Russian leader, saying he was 'Just tapping me along.' In May, he wrote on social media that Putin 'has gone absolutely CRAZY!' Earlier this month, Trump ordered the repositioning of two U.S. nuclear submarines 'based on the highly provocative statements' of the country's former president, Dmitry Medvedev. Trump's vocal protests about Putin have tempered somewhat since he announced their meeting, but so have his predictions for what he might accomplish. Speaking to reporters Monday, Trump described their upcoming summit not as the occasion in which he'd finally get the conflict 'settled' but instead as 'really a feel-out meeting, a little bit.' 'I think it'll be good,' Trump said. 'But it might be bad.'
San Francisco Chronicle
33 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
DC Mayor Bowser walks delicate line with Trump, reflecting the city's precarious position
NEW YORK (AP) — As National Guard troops deploy across her city as part of President Donald Trump's efforts to clamp down on crime, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser is responding with relative restraint. She's called Trump's takeover of the city's police department and his decision to activate 800 members of the guard ' unsettling and unprecedented ' and gone as far as to cast his efforts as part of an 'authoritarian push.' But Bowser has so far avoided the kind of biting rhetoric and personal attacks typical of other high-profile Democratic leaders, despite the unprecedented incursion into her city. 'While this action today is unsettling and unprecedented, I can't say that, given some of the rhetoric of the past, that we're totally surprised,' Bowser told reporters at a press conference responding to the efforts. She even suggested the surge in resources might benefit the city and noted that limited home rule allows the federal government 'to intrude on our autonomy in many ways.' 'My tenor will be appropriate for what I think is important for the District," said Bowser, who is in her third term as mayor. "And what's important for the District is that we can take care of our citizens.' The approach underscores the reality of Washington, D.C.'s precarious position under the thumb of the federal government. Trump has repeatedly threatened an outright takeover of the overwhelmingly Democratic city, which is granted autonomy through a limited home rule agreement passed in 1973 that could be repealed by Congress. Republicans, who control both chambers, have already frozen more than a $1 billion in local spending, slashing the city's budget. That puts her in a very different position than figures like California Gov. Gavin Newsom or Illinois Gov. B Pritzker, Democrats whose states depend on the federal government for disaster relief and other funding, but who have nonetheless relentlessly attacked the current administration as they lay the groundwork for potential 2028 presidential runs. Those efforts come amid deep frustrations from Democratic voters that their party has not been nearly aggressive enough in its efforts to counter Trump's actions. 'Unfortunately she is in a very vulnerable position,' said Democratic strategist Nina Smith. 'This is the sort of thing that can happen when you don't have the powers that come with being a state. So that's what we're seeing right now, the mayor trying to navigate a very tough administration. Because this administration has shown no restraint when it comes to any kind of constitutional barriers or norms." A change from Trump's first term Bowser's approach marks a departure from Trump's first term, when she was far more antagonistic toward the president. Then she routinely clashed with the administration, including having city workers paint giant yellow letters spelling out 'Black Lives Matter' on a street near the White House during the George Floyd protests in 2020. This time around, Bowser took a different tact from the start. She flew to Florida to meet with Trump at Mar-a-Lago after he won the election and has worked to avoid conflict and downplay points of contention, including tearing up the 'Black Lives Matter' letters after he returned to Washington in response to pressure from Republicans in Congress. The change reflects the new political dynamics at play, with Republicans in control of Congress and an emboldened Trump who has made clear he is willing to exert maximum power and push boundaries in unprecedented ways. D.C. Councilmember Christina Henderson said she understands Bowser's position, and largely agrees with her conclusion that a legal challenge to Trump's moves would be a long shot. Trump invoked Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act in his executive order, declaring a 'crime emergency' so his administration could take over the city's police force. The statue limits that control to 30 days unless he gets approval from Congress. 'The challenge would be on the question of 'Is this actually an emergency?'' said Henderson, a former congressional staffer. 'That's really the only part you could challenge.' Henderson believes the city would face dim prospects in a court fight, but thinks the D.C. government should challenge anyway, 'just on the basis of precedent.' Trump told reporters Wednesday that he believes he can extend the 30-day deadline by declaring a national emergency, but said "we expect to be before Congress very quickly.' 'We're gonna be asking for extensions on that, long-term extensions, because you can't have 30 days," he said. 'We're gonna do this very quickly. But we're gonna want extensions. I don't want to call a national emergency. If I have to, I will.' Limited legal options Bowser's response is a reflection of the reality of the situation, according to a person familiar with her thinking. As mayor of the District of Columbia, Bowser has a very different relationship with the president and federal government than other mayors or governors. The city is home to thousands of federal workers, and the mass layoffs under DOGE have already had a major impact on the city's economy. Her strategy has been to focus on finding areas where she and the new administration can work together on shared priorities. For now, Bowser appears set to stick with her approach, saying Wednesday that she is focused on 'making sure the federal surge is useful to us.' During a morning interview with Fox 5, she and the city's police chief argued an influx of federal agents linked to Trump's takeover would improve public safety, with more officers on patrol. Police chief Pamela Smith said the city's police department is short almost 800 officers, so the extra police presence 'is clearly going to impact us in a positive way.' But Nina Smith, the Democratic strategist, said she believes Bowser needs a course correction. 'How many times is it going to take before she realizes this is not someone who has got the best interests of the city at heart?" she asked. 'I think there may need to be time for her to get tough and push back.' Despite Trump's rhetoric, statistics published by Washington's Metropolitan Police show violent crime has dropped in Washington since a post-pandemic peak in 2023. A recent Department of Justice report shows that violent crime is down 35% since 2023, reaching its lowest rate in 30 years.
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Ex-New Mexico state candidate gets 80 years for shootings at Dems' homes
Solomon Peña, an unsuccessful New Mexico state House candidate, was sentenced to 80 years in prison Wednesday "for orchestrating a politically motivated shooting spree and plotting to murder witnesses to obstruct justice," the Justice Department announced. The big picture: A federal jury in March found the 42-year-old guilty of of all charges related to the drive-by shootings targeting the homes and offices of elected state state Democratic officials in N.M. in December 2022 and January 2023. Peña, who ran for the House District 14 seat in the 2022 midterms, was convicted of 13 charges. These included conspiracy, firearms charges, four counts of intimidation and interference with federally protected activities, per a Department of Justice statement Wednesday. Driving the news: "After his electoral defeat, Peña falsely claimed the election was rigged and began pressuring members of the Bernalillo County Board of Commissioners not to certify the results," per the statement. He recruited accomplices Jose Trujillo and Demetrio Trujillo to carry out the shootings after the commissioners refused his demands, the DOJ said. "One of the shootings involved a fully automatic machine gun. Multiple rounds struck areas of the homes where children had recently been or were sleeping," the statement noted. "Following his arrest, Peña attempted to have Jose and Demetrio Trujillo murdered to prevent them from testifying, offering fellow inmates money and a vehicle in exchange for their deaths." Zoom in: Jose Trujillo previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy, interference with federally protected activities and other charges including firearms offenses and was sentenced to 37 months in prison, according to the DOJ. Demetrio Trujillo pleaded guilty to similar charges and was sentenced to 180 months in prison. For the record: The court in Albuquerque ordered Peña to pay restitution and a $250,000 fine. "Upon his release from prison, Peña will be subject to three years of supervised release," the DOJ said.
