|
Education/Libraries
School facilities funding (H521). This bill supposedly provides $2 billion for school facilities over the next 10 years (about $200 million/year) by borrowing the money and paying interest on the debt with taxpayer dollars. I say “supposedly” because the bill places several conditions as to how the money can be spent, including requiring the money to first pay off old school bonds before it can be used to fund new school facilities. This doesn’t help school districts needing new revenue now to fix or replace school buildings. It will force the need for new school bonds, which can wipe away the property tax reduction associated with paying off the old bonds. In addition, the $200 million needed each year to pay off the debt gets taken from the source that funds schools each year – thus leaving less money available to allocate for schools.
Other items that have nothing to do with school facilities are also attached to this bill, including: another reduction in the income tax rate (which will reduce state revenue by $60 million a year) and eliminating the August election date for voting on school bonds. I voted AGAINST this bill, which does less than it claims to do and potentially more damage than is readily apparent. (Note: I voted FOR H766 which fixed a few things, but it didn’t do anything to address the serious flaws mentioned above.)
I offered a different approach to funding school facilities in my February 4th newsletter (Fiscal Malpractice). The legislature should review the $5.2 BILLION in revenue it doesn’t collect in the form of annual sales tax exclusions that are never reviewed and never expire. If a review process concluded that only 10% of those exclusions could no longer be justified, that would generate over $500 million in incremental revenue each year. We’d have the $2 billion in four years – without having to borrow money and waste taxpayer dollars on interest payments. CLICK HERE to see my debate against this bill.
Fund school facilities via a needs-based assessment process (H755. Note: This bill was introduced late in the session for further exploration next year. I voted FOR this bill in committee, but it was too late to move forward.) This bill creates a new fund in the state treasury to support public school facilities, along with a needs-based funding process that could eliminate having to rely on local school bonds. Every student would get the school facilities they deserve, instead of being limited by what the local tax base can support. This is a major reason why school bonds continually fail – and schools deteriorate – especially in economically challenged portions of the state. No community in Idaho should be relying on bonds to fund school facilities. The Idaho Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the state – not local property owners – had the constitutional responsibility to adequately fund schools. H755 is the first real and necessary step toward shifting this burden from property owners to the state legislature. CLICK HERE to see my debate for this bill.
Continue funding the LAUNCH program (H722). This bill continues funding for the LAUNCH program created last year. This program provides tuition assistance for Idaho college students seeking to fill in-demand jobs needed by industries that are important to perpetuating the health and prosperity of Idaho’s economy. LAUNCH helps fill the need for a qualified workforce that can fill these jobs. The bill also made some helpful changes in defining what qualifies as an in-demand job. I voted FOR this bill, which makes a valuable investment in our children seeking these important employment opportunities.
Allow libraries to be sued if someone doesn’t like a book they find on the shelf (H710). I support the portion of this bill that requires all libraries to follow a uniform process for receiving and acting upon complaints. However, this bill has the same flaws as previous versions that allow libraries to be sued for monetary reward, pay expensive legal fees and risk not being able to obtain or afford insurance. It encourages lawsuits and further muddies the waters by failing to consistently apply the Miller test (a recognized legal standard for determining if content is obscene) across all steps in the process.
I voted AGAINST this bill which is being driven more by hearsay, rumor, innuendo, and conjecture via viral social media posts than it is on actual data (very few written complaints have actually been submitted to library boards). In addition, while libraries are subject to a financial penalty, there is no penalty for someone making a false claim. This one-sided approach is designed to intimidate libraries and self-censor themselves to avoid costly lawsuits. CLICK HERE to see my debate against this bill.
Reduce the term of library board members from six years to four years (S1235). One of my arguments against recent “library bills” (including H710) is my support of the conservative principle that government is best when it’s closest to the people. In this case that would be a library board elected by the people or appointed by an elected official. I voted FOR this bill because this gives the people a more frequent opportunity to assess the job being done by their library board. A four-year term is not unreasonable, given that the Governor only serves a four-year term and every legislator only serves a two-year term. However, I would not support the term of a library board member to be less than four years.
Accelerate Charter Schools Act (H422). I support school choice, including charter schools. I would have voted for this bill if it was simply a consolidation and clean-up of 26 years of charter school bills. But buried in this 36-page bill are several sections that made this really about “accelerating” charter school proliferation by private, out-of-state interests.
This bill allows an unlimited number of charter schools to be placed under a single entity, which can act as a shell for a for-profit education service provider. It allows private interests to give charter schools an unlimited amount of money. Most disturbing, it takes away parent and teacher approval before transferring a charter from one private entity to another. Taken together, this bill allows outside interests to create a shadow statewide school district under the umbrella of just a few chartered school districts. It won’t happen overnight, but it will happen over time. The legislature’s first obligation is its constitutional responsibility to support a uniform public school system. I do not support policies that accelerate a preference for one choice at the expense of supporting the traditional public schools that serve over 90% of Idaho students. I voted AGAINST this bill because it sets the stage for undermining that constitutional responsibility. CLICK HERE to see my debate against this bill.
Increase funding provided by the Advanced Opportunities program (S1359). This bill increases the amount of advanced opportunity funds per public school student to $4,625 and it increases the amount per non-public school student to $2,500. There are less than 600 public school students and less than 300 non-public school students who maxed out the funding available to them. I voted FOR this bill which enables unused budgeted funds to provide additional assistance for students pursuing college degrees.
Appoint State Board of Education (SBOE) members by region (H644). Currently, SBOE members are appointed at-large. This bill sounds reasonable until one remembers H293 from last year which would have required all members of the State Board of Education to be elected regionally via partisan elections. This bill enacts most of what last year’s terrible bill attempted to do. I anticipate there will be a follow-up bill next year that simply changes “appointment” to “partisan elections” – which then enables ideological governance of public education. I voted AGAINST this bill, which takes a dangerous first step toward politicizing the SBOE, and public education.
Prohibit colleges and universities from requiring diversity statements as a condition for employment or admission (S1274). This bill states that hiring employees and admitting students can only be based on “merit” without defining what that means (e.g. are test scores the only measure of a person’s merit?). Almost every word in the bill is really about what you can’t use to make these decisions. It specifically prohibits questions about diversity, equity or inclusion (DEI) as part of assessing the character, experience, and substance of the person to be hired or admitted as a student. The deliberate omission of defining “merit” exposes this bill more “anti-DEI” political posturing in an election year. I voted AGAINST this bill, not only for its lack of intellectual honesty, but for the politicizing and demonizing of words that have important meaning and value in society. CLICK HERE to see my debate against this bill.
Allow parents to teach their children how to drive (H531). This bill has come up before and failed before. It addresses an issue in rural Idaho where access to driver’s education can be limited. I have voted against earlier versions of this bill due to the safety concerns it creates in a busy, congested district such as mine. While not a perfect bill, I voted FOR it because it was changed to not be applicable where school districts offer driver’s education training classes, thus addressing a primary concern in my district.
Health & Welfare
Maternity mortality review (H399). Idaho established a Maternity Mortality Review Committee in 2019 that was disbanded when the legislature failed to extend its operation last year. This bill re-established the review of maternal mortality in Idaho under the control of the Board of Medicine. I voted FOR this bill, which will provide data necessary to help craft policies and practices that can reduce maternal mortality in Idaho. While there are some concerns that the original review committee was not simply reinstated without any changes, this bill is an important step in the right direction.
Extend postpartum Medicaid coverage for 12 months to eligible individuals (H633). This bill extends much needed medical services that help ensure the health and safety of new mothers and their children. I voted FOR this important bill that also saves the state money by extending a 90/10 federal funding match for a full year instead of a 70/30 match.
Allow insurance companies to refill a contraceptive prescription for up to six months (S1234). This bill increases the maximum prescription refill period for contraceptives from three months to six months. The prescribing doctor controls the refill frequency of the prescription, be it one month, three months, or now six months. I voted FOR this bill which helps lower costs and reduces the frequency of trips to the pharmacy to refill the prescription.
Prohibit use of public funds for gender transition procedures (H668). This bill is yet another attempt to legislate transgendered Idahoans out of existence, this time by denying them treatment if taxpayer dollars are involved – even though they are taxpayers! Since state and local government employees are paid with tax dollars, this bill implies that they cannot use their own income to pay for gender transition medical treatment for themselves or their family in Idaho or elsewhere. The underlying hypocrisy is that legislators supporting this bill have also publicly admitted that gender dysphoria is in fact a real medical condition. I voted AGAINST this cruel bill which exposes the lengths some politicians – none of whom are doctors – will go to target and harm a very small, vulnerable group of their fellow citizens.
Provide for parental rights during certain child protection investigations (S1232). This bill requires Child Protection Services (CPS) to provide parents or guardians a Miranda-type warning before entering a premises to investigate a claim of child neglect or abuse. I’ve been leery of bills like this in the past out of concern that it may hinder CPS from actually doing its job. However, I voted FOR this bill after learning that the sponsor worked with CPS to develop a brochure outlining these parental rights without creating over-burdensome hurdles that would prevent CPS from fulfilling its responsibilities.
Require parental permission for all medical decisions involving a minor (S1329). This is another good-sounding bill that reveals serious flaws when one looks a little deeper. The bill can inhibit medical attention for minors living in a troubled household where they may be afraid to seek outside help. This can be particularly dangerous if the parents believe in faith healing and thus deny their child life-saving medical treatment. This bill also fails to clarify what happens if the parents disagree (or are divorced). I voted AGAINST this bill which runs into problems when considering a broad range of scenarios. Most disturbing is when the legislator introducing it said, “This is why we don’t allow children to have rights.” Yes, she really said that.
Repeal existing law that allows needle exchange programs for addicts (H617). This bill erroneously assumes that needle exchange programs for drug addicts will promote continued drug abuse. Addiction is a disease. If an addict doesn’t have a sanitary needle, they will use a contaminated one and subsequently have intimate interactions with other people. This is how diseases like HIV and hepatitis infect a community. Enabling addicts to obtain sanitary needles helps slow down the spread of deadly diseases. I voted AGAINST this bill, which creates a clear and present threat to public safety.
Create the Office of Health and Social Services ombudsman (S1380). This bill is in response to numerous situations where the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare has been accused of failing to provide adequate support and services, especially involving children. I don’t support growing government for government’s sake, but I voted FOR this particular bill to provide a necessary check and balance for a state agency that is struggling in several areas. Inadequate funding is also part of the problem, which hopefully an ombudsman can help the legislature understand and resolve.
Enable youth shelters and crisis centers to serve homeless and runaway youth (S1328). This bill allows licensed facilities to house a runaway child where the child consents to being sheltered and the shelter is unable to locate the child’s parent or legal guardian. It also requires these facilities to notify law enforcement. I voted FOR this bill which helps protect the safety of youths struggling under difficult circumstances beyond their control.
Allow electroconvulsive treatment for children ages 14 or older (S1354). This was a difficult bill. At first blush, it appears to condone a form of treatment that might sound cruel or even barbaric. However, a more detailed understanding of its usage reveals that it is a procedure of last resort to treat individuals with severe symptoms of certain mental health issues. The bill contains several guardrails, including: parental consent, exhaustion of all other methods of treatment, and a necessity to save the child's life due to potential suicide or to prevent irreparable injury. I voted FOR this bill which puts stringent conditions in place, respects parental rights, and defers to the expertise of medical professionals over the opinions of politicians.
Crime/Law Enforcement
Criminal penalties related to fentanyl (H406). This bill adds Fentanyl to the list of drugs that carry mandatory minimum sentences. It defines the amount of fentanyl that is required to meet the elements for the crime of trafficking. It also adds provisions for the new crime of “drug induced homicide.”
Many of my Republican colleagues made compelling arguments against bill. They argued that it needed to do a better job of distinguishing between a manufacturer, dealer, trafficker and user of fentanyl. It failed to deal with adults and minors appropriately, and it failed to consider the cost of sending hundreds of people to jail for life – including unknowing young adults (possibly your son or daughter) who were in the wrong place at the wrong.
Unfortunately most of these legislators still voted for the bill because they didn’t want to vote against “a fentanyl bill” in an election year. Had the flaws they raised been fixed, I would have eagerly voted for it. I voted AGAINST it because I believe in voting for or against a bill based on its merit, not political perception.
Legalize the use of fentanyl testing strips (H441). Fentanyl testing strips were designated as “drug paraphernalia” in statute, making their possession a crime. This bill would now allow for the legal use of fentanyl testing strips. I voted FOR this common sense bill, made all the more important by the terribly flawed “fentanyl bill” (H406) that is now law.
Prohibit the sexual depictions of children generated by Artificial Intelligence (H465). This bill amends Idaho’s child pornography law to include artificial intelligence (AI) generated sexual depictions of a real child, or what appears to be a real child. I voted FOR this bill, which is a rare example of government attempting to proactively address the abuse of an emerging and rapidly growing technology.
Online Child Safety Act (H498). The nearly ubiquitous access to pornography on the internet is a major problem, especially when it is made readily available to minors. I voted FOR this well-intentioned bill which attempts to protect minors from harmful material on the internet.
Disclosing explicit synthetic media (H575). This bill makes it a crime to publish explicit synthetic media with the intent to terrify, threaten, intimidate, harass, offend, humiliate, or degrade another person. The purpose of this legislation is to address the recent rise in malicious actors using AI technology to create "deep fakes" of victims for the purpose of harassment or sexual extortion. I voted FOR this bill, which is another attempt to get ahead of the harm this rapidly developing technology can cause.
Business/Local Government
Prevent cities from protecting consumers against unscrupulous landlords (H545). Boise created an ordinance prohibiting landlords from discriminating against applicants based on their source of income, particularly those who receive Section 8 vouchers (which helps the homeless find housing). Within weeks, this bill was written to prevent Boise – and all Idaho cities – from enacting such an ordinance, thus exacerbating homelessness. But the bill went further. It included a prohibition on cities regulating apartment application fees and deposits. This sneaky move resurrects a failed bill from the 2022 session (H442). I voted AGAINST this year's bill, which removes consumer protections against bad actors. Instead, it protects bad actors from consumers.
- CLICK HERE to see my debate against this year's bill.
- CLICK HERE to see my debate against the 2022 version of this bill.
Notify mobile home residents of the possible sale of their community (H590). Current law requires the owner of a mobile home community to notify the tenants of the possible public sale of the property so they have the opportunity to purchase it (and thus prevent being evicted). This bill closes a loop hole in statute that did not require them to be notified in the event of a private sale of the property. I voted FOR this bill, which may help many of my constituents who live in mobile home communities.
Provide immunity for employers who allow or do not prohibit employees to lawfully carry firearms (S1275). If the owner of a private business wants to allow their employees to carry firearms on their person while at work, they have that Second Amendment right to do so. They also have the right to prohibit the carrying of firearms on their premises. Conversely, employees have the right to decide to not work for an employer if they feel threatened or uncomfortable with the policies of any company they work for – which is something employers should consider when setting their company policies. I voted FOR this bill in recognition of that right, regardless of how I might personally feel about it.
Constraints on creating local comprehensive plans and designating areas of impact (S1403). This bill places limitations on the distance a local government can designate areas of impact and comprehensive plans beyond its current boundaries. It also empowers the county to resolve disputes between cities that are growing toward each other. However, there are two problems with this bill: 1) it severely limits the ability of a citizen to seek judicial review of these decisions, and 2) it eliminates a second public hearing if changes are made to plans after an initial public hearing. I voted AGAINST this bill because it diminishes well-established, existing avenues of recourse available to citizens. I would have voted for this bill had those changes the current process not been made.
Limit local annexation of certain properties (S1293). This bill prohibits annexation of an enclave within a city if one side of the enclave is bordered by a natural boundary not owned by the city (e.g. a river, canyon, etc.). It also empowers one individual owning 50% or more of an area subject to annexation to block the annexation, even if there are dozens of other property owners residing in that same area who want to be annexed. I voted AGAINST this bill, which ignored several reasonable amendments proposed by the Association of Idaho Cities. I would have voted for this bill had those amendments been adopted.
Elections
Make it a crime to help a disabled or elderly neighbor cast their sealed absentee ballot (H599). This bill can charge you with a crime for simply helping someone other than a family member deliver their signed, sealed, valid absentee ballot to the county elections office. It has erroneously been given the fearful title of being an “anti-harvesting” bill, even though there is no evidence that the delivery of invalid absentee ballots are happening anywhere in Idaho. I voted AGAINST this un-American voter suppression bill which turns Good Samaritans into criminals.
Protect elected officials and political candidates from “deep fake” electioneering (H664). A candidate whose image, appearance or speech that has been altered in an electioneering communication to mispresent them without a disclosure that the content was manipulated can seek injunctive relief and damages. People still have the freedom of speech to create these AI-generated “deep fakes,” but they need to let the audience know that it has been altered and is not authentic. I voted FOR this bill, which is yet another good example of the legislature trying to get ahead of the damage emerging technologies can do to innocent parties.
Prohibit voting systems in Idaho from being able to connect to the internet (S1394). This bill is based on a concern that election tampering might occur if voting machines at local polling places communicate with a county elections office via the internet. I voted FOR this bill. Note: the internet is not currently being used for this purpose in Idaho.
Require paid signature gatherers to disclose they are being paid (S1377). In addition to placing this requirement on a signature gatherer, every signature on the petition can potentially be thrown out if just one signer claims they weren’t informed. It is an insult to every citizen to imply they can’t make their own independent decision to sign a petition if the signature gatherer is being paid. It is hypocritical for legislators supporting this bill to require this disclosure by paid signature gatherers, but not the people they are paying to knock on doors for them. I voted AGAINST this bill whose real purpose is to prevent citizen-driven initiatives from appearing on the ballot (such as Medicaid Expansion and term limits).
Appropriations
(NOTE: I don’t vote against very many appropriation bills. Unfortunately, I found the circumstances surrounding these appropriation bills to be so problematic that I could not support them.)
Appropriation for the Office of the Attorney General (H752, S1434, and S1458). I cannot support funding an Attorney General’s office that refuses to write legal opinions – an essential responsibility of that position. I expect a politician to avoid putting their opinions in writing - not an attorney. I voted AGAINST funding an office that appears to be more interested in writing weekly political press releases than legal opinions.
Appropriation for Health & Welfare – Welfare Division (S1460). The controversy over this otherwise routine appropriations bill is that it excludes acceptance of $16.5 million in federal funds for the summer Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) program. This program helps feed tens of thousands of Idaho children who qualify for free and reduced lunches. It enables eligible children to continue receiving a food benefit during the summer months when they’re not in school. I voted AGAINST this bill (I would have voted for it had the EBT program been included). Several of the arguments against this bill were just plain false. The benefits do not go to rich kids, they can’t buy anything they want with it, and accepting this money will not increase the federal deficit. Now that this bill has become law, Idaho loses access to the funds, which will now will go to another state. CLICK HERE to watch the votes being cast in the House and see how the voting process was managed in a way that may have influenced the outcome.
Appropriation for the Idaho Transportation Department (H770). This is perhaps the most contentious appropriations bill of the session. It barely passed the House by a vote of 37-31 and it passed the Senate by only one vote: 18-17. This bill reverses ITD’s decision to sell its old headquarters on State Street and move to the state’s new campus on Chinden. ITD made that decision after the building was damaged by internal flooding which created widespread exposure to asbestos and a severe mold problem. However, the real concern is the legislature overstepping its bounds by invalidating a contract that had already been negotiated between ITD and third parties (who are now suing the state). This will cause others to distrust doing business with the state in the future. I voted AGAINST this bill which shows a lack of respect for the executive branch, a co-equal branch of state government.
Changes to judicial compensation (H746). This isn’t technically an appropriations bill, but it has the same effect. This bill provides a modest 2.6% increase in the salaries of Idaho Supreme Court justices and roughly the same amount for appeals court, district court, and magistrate justices. And it does something else: it awards a $25,000 bonus to a Supreme Court justice if they complete their full term before retiring, instead of retiring during the middle of their term. This is a deliberate attempt to “bribe” judges so that their position can be filled via an election instead of an appointment. I voted AGAINST this bill. I have no problem with the public voting for Supreme Court vacancies. I do have a problem with the unseemly manipulation of judges by offering them money. An untended consequence of this bill could also be that a judge who should retire early (e.g. for health reasons) stays on longer just to get the $25,000 bonus. This is bad fiscal, legislative and political policy.
Other
Allow the Department of Fish & Game to not disclose certain information (H404). This bill amends existing law to provide an exemption from disclosing certain records regarding wildlife. Specifically, some people have requested access to GPS data that reveals the precise location of big game animals that have been tagged to study migration and other behaviors. This creates an “unfair chase” situation that runs counter to the spirit and intent of true big game hunting and sportsmanship. I voted FOR this reasonable, common sense bill.
Redefine the word “sex” to be synonymous with the word “gender” (H421). This is bill is a Trojan horse. The sole purpose of this bill is to lay the groundwork for writing bills next year that will legislate people with gender dysphoria out of existence (e.g. designations on driver’s licenses, birth certificates, etc.). I voted AGAINST this “culture war” bill which attempts to rewrite Webster’s Dictionary.
Prevent the state from keeping surplus proceeds in excess of debts owed (H444). If you owe the state money (let’s say $10,000 in property taxes), the state can take your house and sell it to recover the debt you owe. This bill ensures that you will receive the proceeds from the sale that are in excess of the amount necessary to satisfy the debt. It prevents the state from keeping the entire amount received from the sale. I voted FOR this bill, which aligns Idaho law with a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
Purple Heart license plates (H547). I co-sponsored this bill with Rep. Ted Hill (R-Eagle). This bill was brought to me by a constituent who earned a Purple Heart as a marine in Vietnam. It corrects an inequity in the law where disabled Purple Heart recipients who request a Purple Heart license plate don’t have to pay the plate fee, but those recipients who are not disabled do have to pay the plate fee. This bill removes the plate fee for all Purple Heart recipients. I am proud to have the opportunity to show appreciation and support for our veterans in all ways possible – large or small. I (obviously) voted FOR this bill.
Create a voluntary “next of kin” database (S1365). This is a great bill. It gives the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) the ability to collect the necessary information for coroners and other law enforcement to notify a relative or friend in the case of injury, death, or other emergencies. The information is provided voluntarily by the holder of a driver’s license. I voted FOR this bill.
Prohibit harassment via telecommunications (S1262). Current Idaho law prohibits the use of telephone calls that “annoy, terrify, threaten, intimidate, harass, or offend” others. This bill extends these prohibitions to other forms of telecommunications such as emails and text messages. I voted FOR this bill which is an appropriate update to current law.
Prohibit compelling government employees and students from addressing a person by their desired pronoun (H538). This is one of at least 30 bills during the 67th Legislature that seeks to target or marginalize members of the LGBT community, and specifically those who are transgendered. I understand that many people are uncomfortable with transgendered individuals. They don’t like it, understand it, or may even think it is an abomination. Many people felt that way about interracial marriage and may feel that way about same-sex marriage. But it is not illegal to be an interracial couple, gay or transgendered. Everyone deserves respect – including people who are different than us. Unfortunately, the purpose of this bill is to relieve one person’s discomfort without regard to how uncomfortable it makes the other person. I voted AGAINST this bill which allows someone to legally – and deliberately – tell others they’re not who they know themselves to be.
|
