Idaho Senate signs off on proposed anti-marijuana constitutional amendment
In this file photo, David Burr displays the bud on a growing marijuana plant at Essence Vegas' 54,000-square-foot marijuana cultivation facility on July 6, 2017, in Nevada. On July 1, 2017, Nevada joined other states allowing recreational marijuana sales. In fiscal year 2023, sales of cannabis products in Nevada generated more than $10.6 million in tax revenue. ()
The Idaho Senate signed off on a proposed amendment to the Idaho Constitution on Tuesday that, if approved, would make it so that only the Idaho Legislature has the power to legalize marijuana and other narcotics.
House Joint Memorial 4 puts the proposed amendment to the Idaho Constitution up for a vote in Idaho's November 2026 general election.
If a majority of voters pass the amendment, Idaho voters would no longer have the power to legalize marijuana through a citizen's ballot initiative.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The proposed amendment that will go before Idaho voters states: 'Shall Section 26, Article III of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be amended to provide that only the Idaho Legislature shall have power and authority to legalize the growing, producing, manufacturing, transporting, selling, delivering, dispensing, administering, prescribing, distributing, possessing, or using of marijuana, narcotics, or other psychoactive substances?'
Sen. Scott Grow, R-Eagle, co-sponsored the proposed amendment. He and other supporters said it is a way to be tough on marijuana and differentiate Idaho from the majority of surrounding states that have legalized either recreational cannabis or medical cannabis.
CONTACT US
Grow also said advancing the proposed amendment was a way for the Idaho Legislature to exert its authority on the subject of cannabis and other drugs.
'Too many legislatures across this nation have sat back and just waited as initiative after initiative would come after them, until they finally overwhelm it and overwhelm the legislature,' Grow said. 'We are acting because that's our responsibility.'
Grow also cited an existing section of the Idaho Constitution that states, 'The first concern of all good government is the virtue and sobriety of the people, and the purity of the home. The legislature should further all wise and well directed efforts for the promotion of temperance and morality.'
However, opponents said the proposed amendment shows a distrust in voters by asking them to give up their own powers available through the ballot initiative process. In Idaho, a ballot initiative is a form of direct democracy where the voters of Idaho – not the Idaho Legislature – decide whether to pass a proposed law.
'The people have a right under the initiative and the referendum process to weigh in on these issues,' Sen. James Ruchti, D-Pocatello, said. 'We have been clear in the Constitution that all political power is inherent in the people, and we have been clear that the people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and enact the same at the polls independent of the Legislature. We should respect the people.'
Organizers have routinely attempted to gather signatures over the past 10 years attempting to place a medical marijuana or decriminalization initiative on the ballots, but have failed to meet the threshold to qualify their initiative for an election.
Organizers are currently attempting to qualify an initiative to decriminalize marijuana for the November 2026 election.
As for the proposed anti-marijuana amendment to the Idaho Constitution, it takes a two-thirds supermajority of both the Idaho House of Representatives and Idaho Senate to advance a proposed amendment to the Idaho Constitution. The Idaho Senate voted 29-6 to pass the amendment Tuesday afternoon.
The Idaho House previously voted 58-10 to approve the amendment on March 5.
When it goes before voters in November 2026, it will take a simple majority of voters to approve the amendment to the Idaho Constitution.
This is the second major piece of anti-marijuana legislation the Idaho Legislature has put forward in 2025. On Feb. 24, Gov. Brad Little signed a new law creating a mandatory minimum fine of $300 for anyone convicted of simple marijuana possession.
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
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Immigration raids confirmed in Orange County, congressman says ICE is ‘inciting fear'
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids took place in Orange County on Monday, officials confirmed. 'We are aware of ongoing immigration enforcement activity in the Santa Ana Civic Center area,' announced the Santa Ana Unified School District in an X post Monday evening. 'We do not condone actions that disrupt our community or separate families.' The Santa Ana Police Department and city officials also issued a joint statement on Instagram, acknowledging the ICE activity and stating that they are aware the news causes 'fear and uncertainty' for community members. L.A. Protests: Live Updates A spokesperson for the police department told KTLA that they were made aware of the ICE activity in their city because of 'social media posts.' SAPD, similar to most other police departments in Southern California, has reinstated its policy of not participating in immigration enforcement efforts. Although federal or law enforcement officials have not revealed the specifics of the ICE raids, Rep. Lou Correa (D-Orange County) said he received reports that individuals in his district were being arrested for 'doing nothing but standing outside and being profiled.' Upon landing in Washington, D.C. on Monday, Rep. Correa issued a statement about the raids, saying, 'It's unacceptable, and shocking, that this is happening in my hometown of Santa Ana.' 'It appears agents are picking up hard-working, law-abiding taxpayers. Why?' read Rep. Correa's press release, which also shared that the congressman would be immediately returning to O.C. 'Yesterday, everything was good and boring in Santa Ana. Everyone was going to church and going to the grocery store—it was a beautiful day. Today ICE is coming in to raid and disrupt our neighborhood? These are the parents whose children went to school with my kids. They take care of our elderly, mow our lawns, and are a part of the fourth largest economy in the world. This is inciting fear in our community,' continued the release. Rep. Correa also urged those who resist 'unjust, illegal activity' to do so peacefully, referring to the lessons taught by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Glendale terminates 'divisive' detainee holding contract with ICE 'You don't take on a tank or an M16 by walking into it—you do it in a smart, legal, and safe way. Our future depends on a strategic, effective response. One that protects our kids, their future, and their rights.' The congressman concluded his statement by asking the federal government to use restraint and 'common sense' to adhere to the Constitution and provide everyone with due process. In a Monday evening press conference with Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, she shared these values, saying, 'Stop the raids, and give the power back to our Governor.' SAUSD offered resources to the community, advising individuals to contact their local school or visit if they or someone they know needs support or information. 'We stand with our community – today and always.' The city of Santa Ana also provided resources, saying, 'If you or someone you know has questions or concerns, contact your local Congressional office and visit the City's Know Your Rights webpage at for resources and information.' Rep. Correa also encouraged anyone with questions about their legal rights to reach out to his office. For more resource information, click here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jacksonville community groups speak out against immigration raids across the nation
People gathered in Jacksonville to stand in solidarity with protestors in Los Angeles calling for an end to immigration raids. It comes as President Donald Trump sends the military to California to crack down on those protests. Dozens of people have been arrested, with law enforcement claiming the protests have turned violent. On the other side of the country, protestors made their voices heard Monday night outside the Duval County Courthouse. 'We are calling for due process,' said Katie Chorbak, with 50501 Veterans. 'That's a guaranteed freedom in the Constitution, and that is not happening. It's being usurped. With ICE raids, a lot of people are being deported to a foreign country without due process. So we need to stop the ICE raids.' >>> STREAM ACTION NEWS JAX LIVE <<< [DOWNLOAD: Free Action News Jax app for alerts as news breaks] Jacksonville community groups also shouted in support of union leader David Huerta. Federal agents arrested Huerta in California last week for interfering with immigration enforcement. He was released from federal custody Monday on a $50,000 bond after a hearing in federal court in Los Angeles. As tensions remain high in Los Angeles, Jamison Collin-Morita with the Jacksonville Immigrant Rights Alliance said she's seen more local families living in fear of similar raids. 'I think that it's really important that when people are scared like this and they feel like they can't come out to these protests, they feel like they can't be visible - so we have to be visible for them,' said Collin-Morita. She added that they will continue to stand with Los Angeles and communities across the country. 'We have a large movement behind us, and we will not rest until these raids are put to an end,' said Collin-Morita. Many protestors said they will be back out on Tuesday protesting a proposed ordinance in city council. That ordinance would block any city money from going to undocumented migrants [SIGN UP: Action News Jax Daily Headlines Newsletter]
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump orders Marines to Los Angeles as protests escalate over immigration raids, demonstrating the president's power to deploy troops on US soil
(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) William C. Banks, Syracuse University (THE CONVERSATION) President Donald Trump ordered a contingent of about 700 Marines to Los Angeles on June 9, 2025, in response to what Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth described as 'increased threats to federal law enforcement officers and federal buildings.' This dramatic escalation of the military presence in Los Angeles followed Trump's June 7 order to send about 2,000 National Guard troops into the city. Both measures were Trump's response to what he called 'numerous incidents of violence and disorder' by those protesting his administration's actions rounding up and deporting immigrants in the Los Angeles area. State and local officials decried Trump's actions, with California Gov. Gavin Newsom calling the move ' purposefully inflammatory,' as well as ' an illegal act.' California sued the Trump administration on June 9 to block its deployment of National Guard members. Other critics of Trump's actions said the scale and character of the protests did not warrant such extreme measures. Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with William C. Banks, a scholar of the role of the military in domestic affairs, to understand the extent of a president's power to send American troops to Los Angeles. They can, but it is an extraordinary exercise of authority to use troops domestically. It has rarely been done in the U.S. as a way of responding to a civil disturbance. Congress has delegated that authority of deploying American troops domestically to the president in limited circumstances. Otherwise, the only authority is exercised by governors, who have control of the National Guard. Why was American law set up this way? The U.S. was founded in response to heavy-handed English use of the military by King George to interfere with the civil liberties and rights of the colonists in the lead-up to the American Revolution. So, when the founders created the U.S. Constitution, they were very careful to insert roadblocks that would make it difficult for the government to use troops to carry out its own programs. The country's framers also understood there might be occasions when it would be necessary to use the military domestically. They did a couple of things to control the exercise of military authority. One was to ensure that the commander in chief of the military was a civilian. Second, they gave the authority to call up the National Guard, what was known as the 'militia' in those days, to Congress, not to the president, in order to create a separation of powers. Under what circumstances can the president deploy troops to an American city? Under the Insurrection Act, which was signed into law in 1807, a president can deploy troops during what is called an insurrection, simply meaning when all hell breaks loose. The president can decide that it is ' impracticable,' according to the Insurrection Act, to enforce the laws of the U.S. in a given city, and he may call forth the military or the National Guard to help restore law and order. In order to invoke the Insurrection Act, the president first has to make a proclamation to those he calls the insurrectionists to cease and desist. Unless the alleged insurrectionists immediately do what the president says, the president then has the authority to deploy forces. Trump has repeatedly called the protesters in Los Angeles 'insurrectionists,' but has also walked those remarks back and hasn't made any kind of formal proclamation yet. When Trump ordered California's National Guard members to deploy to Los Angeles on June 7, he did so on a narrow statutory authority to protect federal buildings, properties and personnel that were trying to enforce immigration laws. What is the Posse Comitatus Act and how does it apply to the current situation in Los Angeles? Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878. This act's name derives from an arcane Latin term that means 'the power of the county.' This law establishes a legal presumption in the U.S. that the military, if it is deployed domestically, should not engage in law enforcement. This act is an important part of American law. It means that the military and National Guard are trained on this principle that they are not to engage in domestic law enforcement activities. Those are reserved for police, sheriffs and marshals. Invoking the Insurrection Act is the principal exception to this law. So the Insurrection Act allows the military to act as law enforcement officials? That's right. By invoking the Insurrection Act the military could act as cops and have the right to arrest, investigate and detain civilians, with only the Constitution as a check on its power. This is not a situation that California National Guard members have trained for. They are trained to fight actual wildfires, but this is something entirely different. Are there any legal roadblocks that could curb the president's authority to send U.S. troops to Los Angeles? The short answer to this question is no. Can state governors or other elected officials prevent U.S. troops from being sent to their cities? In many ways that is the main question right now. California's governor, Gavin Newsom, has said that the state doen't need these military forces. Newsom's June 9 lawsuit against the Trump administration argues that the authority over the National Guard is reserved for states, 'unless the State requests or consents to federal control.' That has not happened in this case.
