Latest news with #IdahoSupremeCourt
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
No decision yet from Idaho Supreme Court leaves abortion ballot initiative group in the lurch
Anne Henderson Haws, an attorney representing the abortion ballot initiative group Idahoans United for Women and Families, presents opening arguments to the Idaho Supreme Court on Friday, April 25, 2025. (Kyle Pfannenstiel/Idaho Capital Sun) It's been more than 30 days since a hearing in a conflict over the language of a proposed 2026 reproductive rights ballot initiative, but with no decision yet from the Idaho Supreme Court, the group leading the push to restore abortion access in Idaho says the delay is hurting their organizing efforts. Idahoans United for Women and Families launched its citizen-led initiative effort in April 2024 and submitted proposed ballot titles in August. A new state law also requires a fiscal impact statement to be attached to initiatives, and the group alleged Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, a Republican who has been outspoken about his anti-abortion views, and the Division of Financial Management inserted language that was prejudicial. They pointed in particular to a statement that said costs associated with the prisoner population and the Medicaid budget could occur. Idaho Supreme Court hears arguments in abortion ballot initiative lawsuit As part of the initiative process, the Attorney General's Office is responsible for drafting short and long ballot titles that summarize what the legislation would do if passed. State law says the language must describe the proposal accurately and use common language without phrasing that is likely to prejudice voters. The complaint filed by Idahoans United with the Idaho Supreme Court in late January called the statement biased and says it includes contradictory language, 'wrongly implies' that Medicaid and corrections spending would increase, and 'prejudicially includes an irrelevant reference to the state's $850 million Medicaid budget.' Labrador's office did not respond to requests for comment. In court filings, Labrador did not address the fiscal impact statement component of the complaint, and only spoke to the 'fetus viability' language that Idahoans United said was objectionable because it is not medical terminology. Labrador said it is common parlance and there is no difference between that language and 'fetal viability.' In a separate court filing, officials with the Idaho Division of Financial Management did not speak to the rationale for the fiscal impact statement, but restated the language and denied that it was prejudicial to the initiative. The Idaho Supreme Court heard arguments April 25, and there have been no updates since then, despite a motion to expedite. The last court battle over ballot titles was in 2023, when Reclaim Idaho said Labrador's office also prejudiced its initiative language about changing the state primary election system. In that case, oral arguments were held on a Monday and a decision came out that Thursday, with a unanimous vote in favor of Reclaim Idaho. Ultimately, voters overwhelmingly defeated the initiative in the November 2024 election. Idaho has a citizen ballot initiative process, but only its Legislature can propose constitutional amendments, unlike many other states. So instead of a constitutional amendment, the voters are asked to approve a citizen-crafted piece of legislation to be adopted. The measure requires a simple majority of voters to pass. Idahoans United submitted a policy that would establish a fundamental right to contraception and fertility treatments under state law, including in vitro fertilization, the right to make decisions about pregnancy and childbirth, legalize abortion before fetal viability, and preserve the right to abortion after viability in medical emergencies. Fetal viability would be determined by a physician and what treatment is available, but the commonly accepted gestational age of viability in the medical community is 23 to 24 weeks. The group's spokesperson and lead organizer, Melanie Folwell, told States Newsroom that the delay has forced them to cancel a planned kickoff rally on June 14 at the Idaho Capitol. The rally is now scheduled for June 28, in hopes there will be a decision by then. The initiative needs more than 70,000 valid signatures from districts across the state, and organizers had hoped to gather 10,000 of those in June alone. But the initiative language must be finalized and approved before any signatures can be collected, and the signature goal must be reached by April 30, 2026, to qualify for the ballot. 'We won't get another June. We won't get another crack at this in the coming months, and there are some real impacts to having to pursue a lawsuit,' Folwell told States Newsroom. The frustration is not directed at the court, Folwell said, but rather at state offices that crafted the language. 'I can't speculate as to their intent, but in providing us with unclear titles and fiscal impact statement, we have certainly been slowed down,' she said. 'It didn't need to be this way.' There will also be financial effects, she said, because adding pressure to the timeline will increase the costs associated with mobilizing volunteers and canvassers to gather signatures by the deadline. Nate Poppino, spokesperson for the Idaho Supreme Court, told States Newsroom in an email that the court does not comment on judicial deliberations, and opinions are issued at the court's discretion. 'Sometimes the issues the court must consider resolve quickly, and sometimes they require longer discussion,' Poppino said. Each opinion starts with one authoring justice, he said, and a draft is circulated among the other justices who can edit and weigh in before anything is finalized. That includes details like wording and the legal issues involved. 'If it's a situation that involves a dissent, that also is examined by the full court,' he said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
01-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
8 high-profile Idaho court cases in 2025 reshape legal boundaries
Stories by Idaho Statesman journalists, with AI summarization Idaho's courts have drawn sharp lines on legal and civil rights in 2025, with key cases shaping how justice is applied. High-profile rulings included a self-defense acquittal for a Central Idaho man after a standoff and a decision to let Bryan Kohberger's family attend his murder trial despite their witness status. Meanwhile, the Idaho Supreme Court put a definitive stop to Ammon Bundy's efforts to fight charges stemming from a 2020 protest against COVID-19-related public health measures. Mental health and its role in criminal sentencing came up in a prison beating case, where trauma and illness shaped the arguments for a life sentence. And a viral police incident also led to debates over law enforcement practices and appropriate corrections, highlighting how these cases are testing Idaho's legal boundaries. Ammon Bundy was wheeled out of the Idaho Statehouse in 2020 on a chair and found guilty of trespassing. The case dragged on as he kept appealing. | Published April 8, 2025 | Read Full Story by Sally Krutzig Despite the painful loss, his sister said she didn't want the man convicted of her brother's murder to face the death penalty, knowing that the killer had a family too. | Published April 5, 2025 | Read Full Story by Alex Brizee In another order, 4th District Judge Steven Hippler partly granted the prosecution's request to conduct its own mental health examination of Bryan Kohberger. | Published May 7, 2025 | Read Full Story by Alex Brizee 'She helps the good and the bad, and that has caused her to be in trouble at times, but has helped many people with they needed help,' her mother wrote in a letter. | Published March 11, 2025 | Read Full Story by Alex Brizee The presiding judge called the officer's testimony on deescalation 'shocking to say the least.' | Published May 8, 2025 | Read Full Story by Rose Evans 'This was not intended to cause the harm that it did,' the man's attorney said in court last month. | Published May 27, 2025 | Read Full Story by Alex Brizee 'From the beginning this was a clear case of self-defense,' said Richard Blok, the defendant's attorney. | Published April 9, 2025 | Read Full Story by Kevin Fixler 'I share a birthday with him. He's a minute older than I am, so every year — every birthday — will be horrible for the rest of my life,' his twin brother said. | Published May 13, 2025 | Read Full Story by Alex Brizee The summary above was drafted with the help of AI tools and edited by journalists in our News division. All stories listed were reported, written and edited by McClatchy journalists.
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
On Memorial Day, we should also remember, honor veterans who died from war-related causes
In this May 2020 photo, flags are placed at each gravesite at the Idaho State Veterans Cemetery in Boise to honor veterans for Memorial Day. () Memorial Day is a time to set aside our differences and join together in remembering and thanking those brave souls who gave their last full measure for their fellow Americans. They deserve that honor even for serving in what some thought to be an ill-advised conflict. Vietnam turned out to be such a war, but that cannot take away from the fact that the 58,220 service personnel who died in that war were answering the call of their country and doing it well. On Memorial Day, we think of the almost 1,355,000 service personnel who have perished in the nation's conflicts, starting with the 70,000 who died in the Revolutionary War. Since then, about 655,000 died on both sides of the Civil War. The death toll in World War I was 116,516, and 406,399 died in World War II. The vicious and almost forgotten Korean War saw 36,574 deaths. After Vietnam, 2,325 died in the War in Afghanistan and 4,492 in the Iraq War. May they all rest in peace. But there are others we should hold in our hearts in addition to those who died in the war theaters. War has a way of inflicting mortal injuries that only take their toll on veterans after the guns are silenced. They include illnesses caused by exposure to toxins, like poisonous gas in WWI, Agent Orange in Vietnam and burn pit fumes in the Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq. Those toxins have resulted in untold deaths from a variety of cancers and other diseases. They are not counted on the official death tallies, but they nevertheless are directly attributable to combat conditions. Many veterans have experienced health problems attributable to wartime conditions or know of others who have. It has been estimated that about 300,000 Vietnam veterans have died because of exposure to Agent Orange. The late Dan Eismann, my colleague of 12 years on the Idaho Supreme Court, received substantial exposure to Agent Orange during two tours in Vietnam. While on the ourt, he developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma and metastatic melanoma, passing away with honor last year. I was also exposed during my Vietnam service and developed pancreatic cancer in 2017. With surgery, chemo and a great deal of luck, I've been cured. More recently, about 60,000 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are suffering and dying from medical ailments caused by exposure to toxins emanating from burn pits used to destroy all sorts of trash. Congress finally passed the PACT Act in 2022 to provide the necessary medical care, but the act has not been funded for the current fiscal year. That is a serious breach of the country's duty to those veterans. There are many other serious problems that our veteran community faces on an all-too-frequent basis, including mental health issues, chronic substance abuse, suicide, traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress. There is obviously a lot of intermingling of these problems, but they present serious issues for many veterans. While we can only honor the memories of the veterans who died in war zones, everyone concerned about our living veterans can take action to address problems presently confronting them. That could help to prevent future war-related deaths. When we see veterans in distress, we can reach out to them, provide a voice of caring and make a referral to a helpline for expert assistance. Everyone can provide a service to our community of living veterans by speaking out on their behalf in public. We should inform members of our congressional delegation, as well as state and local leaders, that we expect them to advocate for preserving and protecting veterans and the benefits they have rightfully earned. The message must be that we will not put up with massive cuts of medical and support staffing at VA medical facilities. The lives and health of our veteran population must not be sacrificed based on unsupported claims of wasteful spending in veterans programs. Our senators and congressmen should take aggressive action to maintain the current level of VA spending and to ensure funding of the PACT Act in the current budget fight. Funding must be restored for important programs designed to halt the war-related deaths of our veterans, including lifesaving cancer trials, mental health care, and suicide prevention. These essential programs, along with many others, must be restored, stabilized and adequately funded, in order to address war-related injuries and illnesses in our veteran population. They deserve nothing less. On Memorial Day, May 26, let's remember, honor and mourn those gallant Americans who gave their lives in service to this great country. We should also pay tribute to the veterans who died off of the battlefield because of war-related causes. And let's resolve to do our utmost to prevent future loss of life for that veteran population. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Idaho Supreme Court hears arguments in abortion ballot initiative lawsuit
In a packed hearing room, the Idaho Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a lawsuit challenging state officials' descriptions of an abortion rights ballot initiative on Friday, April 25, 2025. (Kyle Pfannenstiel/Idaho Capital Sun) The Idaho Supreme Court on Friday heard arguments in a lawsuit that alleges state officials drafted biased and misleading information for voters on an abortion rights ballot initiative. Idahoans United for Women and Families, the group behind the ballot initiative, in January sued, alleging ballot titles and financial analysis — developed by state officials for voters to see — are inaccurate. 'Idahoans need clear and concise information about a proposed ballot initiative's fiscal impact and its purpose to decide whether to say yes or no at the ballot box — based on their understanding, and not on confusion,' said Anne Henderson Haws, an attorney with the law firm Holland & Hart, which is representing the abortion ballot initiative group. 'The fiscal impact statement and the ballot titles prepared for the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act fail to meet these standards.' As Idaho Legislature winds down, Republican lawmakers maintain strict abortion bans State agencies defend the descriptions — which use 'fetus viability' in one reference, and say the initiative will marginally raise state expenses. The agencies, which wrote the ballot titles and fiscal analysis, say they comply with state law. 'To the extent there's a gap here, I think the gap between their definition and the term fetal variability is worlds larger than the gap between the term fetal viability and fetus viability,' said Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst, who works for the Idaho Attorney General's Office. 'And if the two terms are not synonymous — like if fetus favors us slightly, and fetal favors them slightly, which we don't concede — then why is it that the one that's in favor wins out, when the statutory standard is you're not supposed to be either in favor or against?' The ballot initiative proposes abortion exemptions to Idaho's strict abortion ban laws for emergencies, fetal viability and other reproductive health protections. The court will issue a decision at a later date. In 2023, the Idaho Supreme Court ordered the Idaho Attorney General's Office to rewrite ballot titles for an unsuccessful election reform ballot initiative, following a lawsuit. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The ballot titles, developed by the Idaho Office of the Attorney General, are brief descriptions of the initiative. The short title doesn't say that the law would allow emergency abortions after viability, Idahoans United spokesperson Melanie Folwell previously told States Newsroom. And the short title uses the term 'fetus viability,' which is not the medical phrase, the initiative group argues. That conflicts with the long title's use of the term 'fetal viability,' the group argues. Justices repeatedly asked Idaho's solicitor general why the attorney general's office used a different term than the initiative's policy. Hurst said the AG's office believes fetal viability and fetus viability are essentially the same term. At one point, Justice Robyn Brody questioned whether the language was meant to evoke the broader abortion debate. Anti-abortion activists often call fetuses unborn children. But abortion-rights activists often frame abortion in terms of medical freedom for pregnant patients. Hurst then referenced news writing standards by the Associated Press, a prominent international news wire outlet, that advise against using the terms 'pro life' and 'pro choice' in news articles. 'There are no neutral options here. To the extent the neutral options are here, its fetus viability — fetal viability,' Hurst replied. 'That's more favorable to their side than to ours. The AG has not used pro life language in this. He has done his utmost to use language that is consistent with the way the initiative frames things.' Justice Cynthia Meyer soon pointed out that the Attorney General's Office's long title uses the term 'life of the unborn child.' The bigger issue is with the fiscal impact statement, Folwell previously told States Newsroom. The fiscal impact statement says the initiative wouldn't affect taxes or the state's general fund, but it says the initiative could minorly affect state expenses — in Medicaid and prisoner populations. CONTACT US 'Passage of this initiative is likely to cost less than $20,000 per year. The Medicaid budget for providing services was about $850 million in FY2024,' the fiscal impact review said. 'If passed, nominal costs in the context of the affected total budget are insignificant to the state.' Initiative organizers argue that's not true. Justice Colleen Zahn pressed an attorney for Idahoans United on how the initiative wouldn't raise costs, since Idaho pays for Medicaid patients who need care from complications from abortion pills. 'There's no evidence that it would increase costs so as to increase any budget that doesn't already exist,' Henderson Haws said. The fiscal analysis was prepared by the Idaho Division of Financial Management, an agency overseen by Idaho Gov. Brad Little. After filing four proposed policies in August, Idahoans United for Women and Families narrowed its focus down to one policy that would establish a fundamental right to contraception and fertility treatments under Idaho law. That would include: in vitro fertilization; making decisions about pregnancy and childbirth; legalizing abortion before fetal viability; and preserving the right to abortion after viability in medical emergencies. Under the proposed initiative, fetal viability would be determined by a physician and what treatment is available. In the medical community, viability is generally considered to be between 23 to 24 weeks of gestational age. Initiative organizers are collecting signatures in the hopes of qualifying the initiative to be considered by Idaho voters in the November 2026 general election. A ballot initiative is a proposed law that Idaho voters can approve or reject — independent of the Idaho Legislature. Only the Legislature can propose constitutional amendments, unlike many other states. To pass, the initiative would require a simple majority support from voters. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Wheels of justice turn against Ammon Bundy again in Idaho Supreme Court ruling
Nearly five years ago, Idaho state troopers wheeled far-right activist Ammon Bundy out of the Statehouse in a rolling office chair, and an infamous Idaho joke was born. The incident led to Halloween costumes, re-enactments, memes and even sticker sales. However, so much has happened since 2020 — the year that a pandemic paralyzed the country — that Idahoans could be forgiven if their memories of the event are a little hazy. For those needing a refresher, Bundy and others were protesting COVID-19-related public health measures in August 2020 during a special legislative session when they refused to move out of reserved seats in the Lincoln Auditorium at the Statehouse in Boise, according to previous Idaho Statesman reporting. Following arguments between officials and protesters, the lawmakers moved to a different room, and police ordered everyone to clear the auditorium. Idaho State Police Sgt. Blake Higley testified that Bundy 'made himself dead weight,' which required multiple troopers to pick him up and place him 'in a roller desk chair to get him out of the Capitol, because he wouldn't walk,' according to court records. Bundy then spent nearly five years spinning his wheels in court to try to fight charges stemming from the incident. A jury initially found Bundy guilty of two misdemeanors, for trespassing and resisting arrest, in 2021. Bundy quickly filed a motion asking Ada County Magistrate Judge David Manweiler to acquit him, but the judge denied it. Manweiler sentenced Bundy to three days in jail, though he was given credit for time served, so he did not need to serve additional time. The judge also ordered Bundy to serve 40 hours of community service and pay a $1,089 fine. Bundy then appealed his conviction to District Court, which a judge rejected, leading him to appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court. 'The problem, as it applies in the statute, is that he could be chased by political enemies throughout the Capitol, closing and opening the areas based on their own discretion, and there is no way that we can inquire why (or) whether the basis of closing an area is lawful or not,' Seth Diviney, an attorney with Idaho Injury Law Group, argued on behalf of Bundy at the Idaho Supreme Court in January. Bundy did not respond to the Statesman's request for comment. The justices put a definitive stop to Bundy's legal fight on April 1, with the state Supreme Court rejecting his appeal by issuing the following conclusions in its opinion: Yes, Bundy did trespass when he refused to leave the Lincoln Auditorium. No, Idaho's criminal trespass statute is not unconstitutionally vague or unconstitutionally overbroad when applied to Bundy's conduct. Yes, the trespass statute does apply to public property. No, the Idaho statutes concerning control of different parts of the Capitol grounds do not violate the separation of powers doctrine. In the end, there were no real surprises in the decision. It affirmed all previous rulings made in District Court. 'We are not persuaded by Bundy's overly complicated interpretation of the statute or his argument that he was free to ignore lawful requests to leave because he was complying with lawful conditions imposed on access,' Justice Cynthia Meyer wrote in the opinion, to which all four other justices concurred. 'Idaho's criminal trespass statute provided adequate notice to Bundy that he was prohibited from staying in the Lincoln Auditorium after being asked to leave and that the exceptions to trespass do not apply to him.'
