The House in session at the Idaho Capitol on April 6, 2021. (Otto Kitsinger for Idaho Capital Sun)
Republican and Democratic legislative leaders argued over the language of a proposed amendment to the Idaho Constitution on Tuesday before the GOP majority approved the language that will go before voters in November.
The debate played out during Tuesday’s Legislative Council meeting at the Idaho State Capitol in Boise and decided how Senate Joint Resolution 102, or SJR 102, will be presented on the Nov. 8 general election ballot. If a simple majority of Idaho voters approve the proposed constitutional amendment, the Idaho Legislature would be able to vote to call itself back into session at any time.
Currently, the Idaho Constitution says only the governor has the authority to call the Legislature in for a special session, which is officially referred to as an extraordinary session in legislative lingo.
The Idaho Legislature currently convenes an organizational session on the first Thursday of December following a general election, and then meets in a regular session beginning each January.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Since 2000, Idaho governors have called four special legislative sessions — in 2000, 2006, 2015 and, most recently, in 2020.
During the 2021 regular legislative session, Republicans in the Idaho Legislature passed Senate Joint Resolution 102 after saying legislators need to have the power to call themselves back into session to deal with issues that may arise after they have already adjourned for the year. Adjournment typically happens in late March or early April. Democrats and a couple of moderate Republicans opposed the proposed amendment, saying the governor already has the ability to call a special session and the current system includes checks and balances.
If voters pass the amendment, the president pro tem of the Idaho Senate and the speaker of Idaho House of Representatives would call the Legislature in for a special session “no later than 15 days following the receipt of a joint written petition of at least 60% of the membership of each house specifying subjects to be covered, and to provide that the Legislature shall have no power in such a special session to consider or pass any bills or resolutions on any subjects other than those specified in the petition and those necessary to provide for the expenses of the session.”
If a majority of voters don’t vote in favor of Senate Joint Resolution 102, the Idaho Constitution will not be amended and only the governor would be allowed to call a special session — just as the case is today.
What did Idaho legislators disagree about during discussions for the proposed constitutional amendment?
Predictably, Tuesday’s debate got political. The bulk of debate dealt with the statements for and against the proposed constitutional amendment that will appear on the ballot.
Democrats on the Legislative Council favored adopting language against the proposed constitutional amendment that said passage of the amendment would “open a path for those who want a full-time, professional legislature in which legislators would live in Boise full-time, visit their districts only occasionally, receive most if not all of their pay from state government, and become cut off from the needs and wishes of those they are supposed to represent.”
“I don’t think that there is any question that this amendment does open that path,” said Sen. Grant Burgoyne, D-Boise. “Just witness what happened in the 2021 session, even without this amendment, where the Legislature didn’t adjourn until Nov. 17 of the year in question.”
Rep. Wendy Horman, R-Idaho Falls, and other Republicans objected to including language suggesting some legislators want to be there full time.
“To presume that I voted not to (adjourn) sine die because I wanted a full time, professional legislature is not accurate. I voted that way because I want to retain the people’s right to act on behalf of their elected representatives in a very uncertain and difficult and rapidly evolving situation.”
SUPPORT NEWS YOU TRUST.
In the end, Republicans instead approved language “against” the amendment that emphasized the Idaho Legislature is a part-time citizen legislature. “The proposed amendment provides no limitations on how often special sessions may be called or how long they may last,” the approved language states. “Idaho should not move toward having a full-time legislature, and Idaho’s part-time citizen legislators with other careers should not be burdened with sudden, unpredictable special sessions.”
Meanwhile, Burgoyne opposed language “for” the proposed amendment that criticized Gov. Brad Little, saying the governor “delayed convening the Legislature” in 2020. Although, as Burgoyne pointed out, Little did call a special session to convene on Aug. 24, 2020. In the end, Republicans on Tuesday decided to keep the language criticizing Little.
Idaho’s November ballot may also include an education funding initiative question
The proposed constitutional amendment in SJR 102 isn’t the only question likely to appear on Idahoans’ Nov. 8 ballot. Leaders of the nonpartisan, nonprofit organization Reclaim Idaho announced they exceeded their signature collecting goal to get an education funding ballot initiative question on the November ballot.
If county and state election officials verify Reclaim Idaho obtained the proper number and distribution of signatures, voters would decide whether to approve a proposal to raise more than $300 million in funding for public schools by increasing the corporate income tax rate from 6% to 8% and creating a new tax bracket at 10.925% for individuals making more than $250,000 per year and families making more than $500,000 annually.
Reclaim Idaho leaders said they expect county clerks to wrap up their signature verification process around the end of June. If Reclaim Idaho’s Quality Education Act qualifies for the November ballot, it would take a simple majority of voters to approve the education funding initiative.
Here is the language for and against the proposed constitutional amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 102, that legislative leaders approved Tuesday. Statements for the proposed amendment: Statements against the proposed amendment:
Here is the language for and against the proposed constitutional amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 102, that legislative leaders approved Tuesday.
Statements for the proposed amendment:
Statements against the proposed amendment:
Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our web site. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of photos and graphics.