logo
A long trend: How the Idaho Legislature has removed local governments' powers

A long trend: How the Idaho Legislature has removed local governments' powers

Yahoo14-04-2025
A protester's sign encouraging no COVID-19-related mandates rests against an end table in the Idaho House's lobby at the Statehouse in Boise, Idaho, on Nov. 15, 2021. (Otto Kitsinger for Idaho Capital Sun)
Early on in the COVID pandemic, Idaho Gov. Brad Little issued a temporary stay home order — temporarily closing some businesses and limiting public gatherings.
Months later, he ended the statewide measure. And he refused calls for a statewide mask mandate.
Instead, Idaho's governor handed off most pandemic control measures to local governments. Some required masks and limited public gatherings at times.
This year — two years after the federal health emergency for COVID ended — the Republican supermajority-controlled Legislature stripped public health powers local governments did and didn't use. Two new laws ban government mask mandates, along with medical mandates for vaccines, medical diseases diagnosis or treatment.
Those are among a handful of laws passed by the Idaho Legislature this year that will limit local governments' policymaking powers.
The new laws deal with a range of issues — from banning more strict local child care regulations, limiting flags flown at government offices, and requiring big cities to regulate 'public camping.'
It's part of a longer trend of Idaho state lawmakers limiting local governments' powers — like limiting raises to property taxes, and stopping localities from banning plastic bags or raising minimum wages.
'There is this ever present tug of war between 'What is the proper role of local government?' and 'What is the proper role of the state government in telling the local government where their boundaries are?'' Senate President Pro Tempore Kelly Anthon told the Idaho Capital Sun in an interview. 'And I think that that is going to continue forever.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
In the public policy world, moves by a higher level of government to limit the power of lower government are known as preemption.
In other words, it's when a state blocks, or preempts, a local government from taking a certain action or pursuing a certain kind of policy.
Idaho Republican elected officials have long said they value local control and limited government. But they often carve out exceptions when they preempt local power.
'When you have Republicans saying that 'It's the government closest to the people that governs best,' but yet they insert themselves as often as they do every year in the business of locals, I would say that they say one thing and then often do another,' Association of Idaho Cities Executive Director Kelley Packer told the Sun in an interview.
The Association of Idaho Cities says at least 14 Idaho bills this year sought to preempt local decisionmaking.
Sometimes, preemption is appropriate, said Packer, who used to be a Republican state lawmaker. She pointed to a bill this year that will block cities from requiring electric vehicle chargers in new developments.
'We as a city or any city should not be telling other elected officials or private developers that they have to put something in their development plans that doesn't impact the health and safety of the city's residents,' Packer said.
To Anthon, the top Idaho Senate Republican who has served in the Legislature for 10 years, deciding whether preemption is appropriate depends on the issue.
'A Republican would say 'We absolutely support local control, so long as it doesn't step on constitutional rights, the rule of law and … the constitutionally mandated powers of the state Legislature,'' said Anthon, a Republican from Rupert.
But to Idaho House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, Idaho's pattern of preemption laws 'exposes' the Republican value of local governance as 'complete fraud.'
'They have no interest in local government. They want government that aligns with their ideologies,' said Rubel, a Boise Democrat who has served in the Legislature for 11 years.
She rattled off examples: blocking local governments from flying LGBTQ+ pride flags, preventing local governments from responding to climate change, and blocking federal grants meant to help child care.
Idaho's Republican control makes the state an interesting case study for preemption, Boise State University political science professor Alexandra Artiles told the Sun.
'On the one hand, preemption can contradict 'small government' values or the idea that city councils, for instance, can better tailor policies to localized needs,' she wrote in an email. 'On the other hand, Idaho is one of the few states without constitutional Home Rule, a legal framework that helps to protect local governments from state preemption.'
Idaho's new laws were among over a dozen bills state lawmakers considered this year to limit local decision-making.
Here's a rundown of the new Idaho local preemption laws, signed by Gov. Brad Little:
Child care regulations
House Bill 243's big policy shift is that it loosens Idaho's state-set minimum child care staff-to-child ratios, effectively letting a staff member care for more children at a given time. That shift will make Idaho's child-to-staff ratios the 45th loosest in the nation, up from 41st loosest in the nation, Idaho Voices for Children Executive Director Christine Tiddens previously told the Idaho Capital Sun.
But on a local policy front, the bill also blocks local governments from having child care regulations that are more strict than what the state sets.
The bill does that by repealing language in Idaho law that allowed for stricter local policy. The new law takes effect July 1.
Only nine cities license day cares, Packer said. That is largely in bigger cities — in response to emergency calls from parents whose kids got hurt, she said.
Mask mandates
House Bill 32 bans mask requirements for infectious disease by schools and Idaho government entities. The law took effect immediately after Little signed it into law in early March.
Electrical vehicles
House Bill 86 preempts cities from requiring electrical vehicle charging stations or parking spots. The law took effect immediately after Little signed it into law on March 11.
Public camping
Senate Bill 1141 will ban public camping or sleeping in Idaho's largest cities, essentially targeting people experiencing homelessness sleeping in public. The law allows the Idaho attorney general to civilly enforce the law against cities or county highway districts that knowingly violate the law.
The bill takes effect July 1.
Flag restrictions
House Bill 96 restricts state and local government entities to only display official domestic government and military flags. Schools, colleges and universities are exempted from the flag bill's restrictions.
While House lawmakers didn't specifically mention it in the House's floor debate, Boise City Hall has displayed the LGBTQ+ pride flag. The city continues to fly the flag, the Idaho Statesman reported Friday, despite the law already taking effect.
Cars first, sidewalks and bike paths second
Two bills, Senate Bill 1140 and Senate Bill 1144, require highway districts to tailor new projects to cars — limiting new pedestrian or bicycle infrastructure, BoiseDev reported.
Medical mandates
Senate Bill 1210 will create a broad medical mandate ban. It bars Idaho businesses, government entities, schools and colleges from restricting entry, employment or services based on requirements for medical interventions — like vaccines, medical diagnosis or treatment.
The law takes effect July 1.
Preemption is common in public health, Artiles, the Boise State professor, explains. In a previous research paper, she found governors issued over 1,200 preemptions related to COVID in less than the first two years of the pandemic.
CONTACT US
But some officials worry Idaho's public health preemptions this year leave the state less prepared to respond to future pandemics.
Most cities didn't even require masks, and none of them required vaccines for entry to city halls, Packer said. (Public health districts in Idaho — essentially regional health authorities — did at times mandate masks and limit gatherings.)
But the Association of Idaho Cities has pushed back on the mask mandate ban because, Packer said, 'locals are the ones that have to answer immediately to any disaster that happens within the city or the county.'
'We don't know what might come down the pike next — what we might be faced with,' Packer said.
COVID was unexpected, and left public officials to face tough choices. Some people wanted public health restrictions, and others wanted to be left alone, Packer said.
Rubel thinks the new laws leave Idaho less prepared to deal with a future pandemic. She remembers the days that thousands of Americans died each day from COVID. A future pandemic might be even worse, she said.
'I hope we never see another pandemic in our lifetimes. But chances are, we probably will — with population growth and all the factors being what they are,' Rubel said. 'I don't know what we can fall back on at this point. Everything has been dismantled.'
A health freedom philosophy influenced bills in the Legislature this year, Anthon said. That's along with a sentiment that the government had too heavy a hand in responding to the COVID pandemic, he added.
'That was the sentiment of a majority of the members of the Legislature this year. … And a belief that when you have to make these medical or health care decisions, it's better done on an individual basis. And that if you give people the proper information, they will make those decisions on an individual basis better,' Anthon said. 'And that there still can be a government reaction to stop the crisis, if you'll better inform people.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

DeSantis announces plans for second immigration detention facility in north Florida
DeSantis announces plans for second immigration detention facility in north Florida

Washington Post

timea few seconds ago

  • Washington Post

DeSantis announces plans for second immigration detention facility in north Florida

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration is preparing to open a second immigration detention facility at a state prison in north Florida, as a federal judge decides the fate of the state's holding center for immigrants at an isolated airstrip in the Florida Everglades dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz.' DeSantis announced Thursday that the new facility is to be housed at the Baker Correctional Institution, a state prison about 43 miles (69 kilometers) west of downtown Jacksonville. It is expected to hold 1,300 immigration detention beds, though that capacity could be expanded to 2,000, state officials said. After opening the Everglades facility last month, DeSantis justified building the second detention center that he dubbed 'Deportation Depot,' by saying President Donald Trump's administration needs the additional capacity to hold and deport more immigrants. 'There is a demand for this,' DeSantis said. 'I'm confident that it will be filled.' The governor touted the relative ease and economy of setting up the north facility at a pre-existing prison, estimating the build-out cost to be $6 million. That's compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars the state has committed to construct the vast network of tents and trailers at the south facility in the rugged and remote Florida swamp. 'This part of the facility is not being used right now for the state prisoners. It just gives us an ability to go in, stand it up quickly, stand it up cheaply,' DeSantis said of the state prison, calling the site 'ready-made.' It could take two to three weeks to get the facility operational, according to Kevin Guthrie, the director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management, the agency in charge of building the immigration facilities. The state had announced plans to 'temporarily' close the prison in 2021, due to persistent staffing shortages . 'A building that's been dormant now for a couple of years is going to have some unforeseen challenges,' Guthrie said when estimating the construction timeline. DeSantis pledged that detainees at the new facility will have 'the same services' that are available at the state's first detention center. Attorneys for detainees at the Everglades facility have called the conditions there deplorable, writing in a court filing that some detainees are showing symptoms of COVID-19 without being separated from the general population. Rainwater floods their tents and officers go cell-to-cell pressuring detainees to sign voluntary removal orders before they're allowed to consult their attorneys. 'Recent conditions at Alligator Alcatraz have fueled a sense of desperation among detainees,' the attorneys said in the court filing. Conditions at the hastily built detention center were outlined in a filing made Wednesday ahead of a hearing Monday over the legal rights of the detainees. Civil rights attorneys want U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz to ensure that detainees at the facility have confidential access to their lawyers, which the lawyers say they haven't had. They also wanted the judge to identify an immigration court that has jurisdiction over the detention center so that petitions can be filed for the detainees' bond or release. The civil rights attorneys say they've been told regularly that federal immigration courts in Florida don't have jurisdiction over the detainees held in the Everglades. ___ Associated Press writer Mike Schneider in Orlando contributed to this report. Kate Payne is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

How to Fix America's Gerrymandering Problem
How to Fix America's Gerrymandering Problem

Time​ Magazine

timea few seconds 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.

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis announces plans for second immigration detention facility in north Florida
Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis announces plans for second immigration detention facility in north Florida

Chicago Tribune

time29 minutes ago

  • Chicago Tribune

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis announces plans for second immigration detention facility in north Florida

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration is preparing to open a second immigration detention facility at a state prison in north Florida, as a federal judge decides the fate of the state's holding center for immigrants at an isolated airstrip in the Florida Everglades dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz.' DeSantis announced Thursday that the new facility is to be housed at the Baker Correctional Institution, a state prison about 43 miles (69 kilometers) west of Jacksonville. It is expected to hold 1,300 immigration detention beds, though that capacity could be expanded to 2,000, state officials said. After opening the Everglades facility last month, DeSantis justified opening the second detention center, dubbed 'Deportation Depot' by the state, by saying President Donald Trump's administration needs the additional capacity to hold and deport more immigrants. 'There is a demand for this,' DeSantis said. 'I'm confident it will be filled.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store