Latest news with #IdahoHouseStateAffairsCommittee
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill to ban state employees from helping lawsuits against Idaho fails in committee
Rep. Judy Boyle, R,-Midvale, calls a fellow legislator on the House floor at the Idaho Capitol in Boise on April 6, 2021. (Otto Kitsinger for Idaho Capital Sun) A bill that would've banned Idaho state employees from helping lawsuits against the state of Idaho failed Friday. House Bill 319, by Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale, failed in the Idaho House State Affairs Committee — after several lawmakers worried about the bill's definitions and the broader idea of the bill's namesake focus: 'State Employee Loyalty.' Ultimately, no lawmaker on the committee made a motion on what to do with the bill, meaning it effectively failed. 'I swore an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the state of Idaho. I did not swear an oath (of) loyalty to this state,' said Rep. Joe Alfieri, R-Coeur d'Alene. 'It has a potential for preventing people from … doing what they see as their job, which is to serve the people of the state,' he said. The bill would've banned state employees from assisting in 'any legal matter' against Idaho. Legal matters, under the bill, would have included litigation or 'any quasi-judicial proceeding,' along with administrative hearings, arbitration or mediation. Under the bill, state employees who are subpoenaed could still serve as fact witnesses in court. State employees would still have rights to their own legal claims against the state, the bill says. Presenting the bill to the committee, Boyle said there are several instances of Idaho law professors consulting or being the attorney or record on lawsuits against Idaho — without referencing any specific lawsuits or professors. 'So the state's on one side, and they're being paid by the state. And then they are on the other side, being paid by a private party to fight the state,' she said. 'So this would prevent that. They have to decide one or the other: They're a state employee, or they're a private contractor.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Rep. Todd Achilles, D-Boise, asked how the bill would affect state employees using their own personal time. 'This seems to restrict that First Amendment right,' he said. Boyle suggested an employee who assists in legal claims against the state is a 'dual agent.' CONTACT US 'If you're being paid by the state and you are supposed to be loyal to the state not actively — in your spare time, or maybe it's not even spare time — fighting against your employer. You're not a whistleblower, in that case. You're a dual agent — maybe you could say,' Boyle replied. The bill would have defined 'assist' as 'acting as a paid or unpaid agent, consultant, expert, or attorney in any claim against the state of Idaho, receiving any share of or interest in any such claim, or receiving any compensation or gratuity in consideration of assistance in the pursuit of such claims.' The bill would've allowed the Idaho Attorney General, who is currently Raúl Labrador, to bring civil actions, such as lawsuits, against state employees who violate the bill. People who violated the bill could've been fired, and would've been subject to at least a $10,000 civil penalty, or a civil penalty as high as the amount of compensation they 'received while engaging in the prohibited conduct,' the bill says. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
12-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill to limit which types of flags can be flown on government properties advances to Idaho House
Idaho House State Affairs Committee chairman Brent Crane, R-Nampa, listens to Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, introduce a new bill at the Jan. 7, 2025, meeting of the committee at the Idaho Statehouse in Boise. (Pat Sutphin for the Idaho Capital Sun) A bill to limit the kinds of flags a government entity can use on its property is moving forward to the floor of the Idaho House of Representatives. On Wednesday, the Idaho House State Affairs Committee held a hearing on House Bill 96, sponsored by Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard. According to the bill, municipalities, counties, special districts or any other political subdivisions or 'governmental instrumentalities' would be limited from using bills that are not: The U.S. flag The official flag of a governmental entity Official flags of any state in the U.S. Official flags of any military branches and units of the U.S. The POW/MIA flag Official flags of Native American tribes The committee voted to advance the bill to the floor with a recommendation that it pass. The committee's two Democrats, Rep. Todd Achilles, D-Boise, and a substitute for Rep. Brooke Green, D-Boise, voted against the motion. The House may vote on it in the coming days or weeks of the legislative session. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
05-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Idaho bill allowing law enforcement to engage in immigration heads to House floor
Members of the Idaho House State Affairs Committee listen to proceedings at the Jan. 7, 2025, meeting of the committee at the Idaho Statehouse in Boise. From left to right are, Reps. Joe Palmer, R-Meridian; Jaron Crane, R-Nampa; and Clint Hostetler, R-Twin Falls. (Pat Sutphin for the Idaho Capital Sun) A bill meant to regulate unauthorized immigration in Idaho is headed to the Idaho House floor. On Wednesday, the Idaho House State Affairs Committee voted to advance House Bill 83 to the House floor with a recommendation that it pass. The bill would create a new crime known as illegal entry. A violation of being in Idaho without proper authorization would result in a misdemeanor charge, and a second occurrence would lead to a felony charge. However, law enforcement would only be allowed to take action regarding a person's immigration status if that person is already being detained or investigated for a separate crime. The bill is an iteration of legislation first introduced in 2024, when sponsor Rep. Jaron Crane, R-Nampa, introduced it as a replica of a controversial Texas law allowing law enforcement to detain people suspected of not having legal authorization to be in the country. Crane's bill passed the Idaho House floor, but it died when the Idaho Legislature adjourned in April. Crane introduced the bill again on Jan. 14, but he has since redrafted it after receiving feedback from Idaho homebuilders groups and the Idaho Dairymen's Association. The new iteration says law enforcement may get involved in immigration enforcement 'only when a person is detained or investigated for suspected commission of an independent crime.' 'The purpose of this legislation is to give our state and local law enforcement agencies the ability to work with the Trump administration and the federal agents in order to curtail this issue,' Crane told the committee. Co-sponsor Rep. Bruce Skaug, R-Nampa, said the changes in the bill are to target unauthorized immigrants in Idaho who already have a criminal record, particularly people involved in gangs. 'We do not want our police to go searching through neighborhoods and (saying) 'we're looking for anybody that doesn't look like us,'' Skaug said. 'We don't want that. I spoke with our Sheriffs Association… They have no interest in that kind of enforcement, nor do they have the manpower.' Skaug said the bill would not allow law enforcement officers to request proof of citizenship when stopping people for infractions. 'Crimes are not getting a traffic ticket,' Skaug said. 'That's an infraction. But if you're being investigated for an actual crime or charged with an actual crime, then you may be cited for the misdemeanor portion of this bill.' Rep. Todd Achilles, D-Boise, said he appreciates the changes that have been done to the bill, but he said he is concerned that this bill is unconstitutional, and undermines the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause which establishes immigration law as a federal matter. A lawsuit related to this bill would come at the expense of Idaho taxpayers, he said. 'There's plenty of precedent behind that,' Achilles said. 'So, how are we crafting this bill in a way where it's going to be treated differently from the Texas version that's in the courts right now?' Skaug said he believes Idaho's bill is a better bill than Texas's bill, which immediately faced legal challenges from the U.S. Department of Justice and Immigration and immigration advocacy organizations that prevented it from taking effect, the Texas Tribune reported. 'I'm not worried about the Supremacy Clause on our bill, especially with the current administration and the changes that they're making,' Skaug said. 'I don't think we're gonna get sued by the federal government on this.' Three people testified to the committee, all of whom were in favor, including Kootenai County Sheriff Bob Norris and Bob Naerebout, the director of government affairs for the Idaho Dairymen's Association. According to the bill's fiscal note, its passage would require a $250,000 supplemental appropriation for the 2025 fiscal year, and a $1 million general fund appropriation for the 2026 fiscal year. Crane said the funds represent what it would cost law enforcement to transport unauthorized immigrants from Idaho to the southern border. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
04-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Back again: Bill to limit absentee ballots introduced in Idaho House committee
Idaho state Reps. Clint Hostetler, R-Twin Falls, (left) talks with Joe Alfieri, R-Coeur d'Alene, (center) prior to the Jan. 7, 2025, meeting of the House State Affairs Committee. (Pat Sutphin for the Idaho Capital Sun) A North Idaho legislator on Tuesday introduced a bill intended to limit who can receive an absentee ballot. Rep. Joe Alfieri, R-Coeur d'Alene, told the Idaho House State Affairs Committee the bill's purpose is to prevent fraud. According to the bill's statement of purpose, the absentee ballot was 'never intended as a convenience,' and it was meant to provide access to voters with a physical infirmity, an illness and those with work restrictions. Currently, any registered voter in Idaho may request an absentee ballot to be mailed to their address. But the bill would change this policy, allowing only the following Idahoans to request an absentee ballot: Those on active military service Those experiencing an illness, disability or hospitalization Those working or attending university Those on a religious mission Those occupying a second home or residents outside of their home county on the day of the election Those 65 years old or older Those living in a mail ballot precinct Idaho legislators have introduced similar bills in the past, the Idaho Capital Sun previously reported, but they did not make it past the early stages of the Idaho House side. According to an official website run by the Idaho Secretary of State, more than 173,300 individuals submitted an absentee ballot during the 2024 general election, 56% of whom were registered Republicans. Given the popularity of absentee voting in Idaho, Republicans and Democrats on the committee shared their concerns about the bill. Rep. Todd Achilles, D-Boise, said the bill favors older people, and he would like to see real examples of absentee ballots causing voter fraud. Additionally, he said Idahoans cannot predict if they'll fall sick on Election Day and need to request an absentee ballot. Rep. Stephanie Mickelsen, R-Idaho Falls, agreed that the bill favors older people, and pointed out that there is no exception for mothers, especially in rural areas, with multiple children. 'My daughter, I think she might have to go 20 miles (to vote), right?' Michelsen said. 'I don't see anything in here that addresses the needs of young families, young mothers… Are we trying to limit people's participation and their voice by running this?' The committee voted to advance Alfieri's bill, clearing the way for a full hearing in the coming days or weeks. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
29-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill to create government-managed public notice website in Idaho stalls
The Idaho State Capitol Building in Boise shines in the sunlight on Jan. 7, 2025. (Pat Sutphin for the Idaho Capital Sun) Idaho House lawmakers on Wednesday shelved a bill that would let government agencies and residents electronically publish official public notices instead of paying newspapers to publish them. The Idaho House State Affairs Committee voted 9-6 to hold the bill, House Bill 33, in committee. Rep. Jeff Ehlers, R-Meridian, pitched the bill as a way to modernize public notices and reduce costs that Idaho government agencies pay newspapers to publish public notices. The bill would've allowed posting public notices online on a state-government managed website, which would've let users subscribe to alerts. State and local governments would've saved at least $1 million each per year, the bill's fiscal note estimated. Creating a state public notice website, the fiscal note estimated, would've cost $570,000 in one-time development costs and around $300,000 each year for ongoing operation costs. 'It's important that we get back to the intent of why we have public notices. And to me, that's in the name of it, which is to notify the public of what's happening — to bring transparency to the actions of the government,' Ehlers told the committee. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Several newspaper representatives testified against the bill, noting that public notices are already available online through a website by the Newspaper Association of Idaho. Representatives for the Association of Idaho Cities, the Idaho Association of Counties, the Idaho School Boards Association, and Ada County commissioners testified in support of the bill. The committee's vote to hold the bill in committee came after some lawmakers expressed concern about allowing the state government to manage publishing public notices. 'The reason that we have requirements that we publish in newspapers is to make sure that certain notices are brought before the public, so that the public may act on those,' said Rep. Joe Alfieri, R-Coeur d'Alene. '… If we are going to turn that over to the state, we are at risk of having that information kept from the public when it doesn't serve the best interests of the state.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
