Idaho lawmakers took significant steps on Friday toward changing the state’s process for voter-approved laws. The state Senate moved forward with a proposal to amend the Idaho Constitution, raising the number of signatures needed for initiatives to appear on the ballot. Meanwhile, a bill that would have allowed the governor to veto successful initiatives was rejected by a House committee.
Proposed Amendment to Raise Signature Threshold
In a meeting that lasted more than two hours, the Senate State Affairs Committee voted 5-3 to advance Senate Joint Resolution 101. The resolution, sponsored by Senator Doug Okuniewicz (R-Hayden), aims to increase the requirements for qualifying a ballot initiative or referendum.
Currently, petitioners must gather signatures from 6% of registered voters statewide, as well as 6% from voters in 18 of Idaho’s 35 legislative districts. The proposed change would raise this requirement to 6% of voters in all 35 districts.
If the resolution passes the Idaho Senate and the House of Representatives with a two-thirds majority, it will be put to a public vote. For the amendment to be enacted, a majority of voters must approve the measure in a statewide election.
Controversy Over Governor Veto Bill
In a separate development, the Idaho House State Affairs Committee voted in a tie (7-7) to reject a bill that would have allowed the governor to veto successful ballot initiatives that did not have supermajority support. The bill, introduced by Representative Bruce Skaug (R-Nampa), would have given the governor the power to veto any ballot initiative passed by voters with less than a two-thirds majority.
Skaug has decided not to pursue this bill further, citing the tie vote. He acknowledged that public testimony on the bill had been mostly negative, which influenced the committee’s decision.
Public Opposition and Legal Challenges
The public testimony against both proposed changes was largely negative. Out of the 40 people who testified, 37 opposed the proposed constitutional amendment. Critics argued that the current signature requirements are already high, making it difficult for voters to bring initiatives or referendums to the ballot.
Opponents also pointed out that a similar law passed in 2021 was ruled unconstitutional by the Idaho Supreme Court. That law sought to implement the same 6% signature requirement in all 35 legislative districts. In its ruling, the court emphasized that the right to initiate and referendum laws is a “fundamental right” for Idahoans, and such changes must undergo strict scrutiny.
One opponent, Cynthia Gibson of the Idaho Conservation League, argued that initiatives allow the public to bypass the Legislature when elected officials fail to act. She stressed that this right has been part of Idaho’s constitution since the state’s founding.
Critics also worried that the proposed changes would allow powerful special interests to derail popular initiatives by focusing opposition efforts on a single legislative district.
Kay Hummel, another opponent, highlighted how initiatives in the past had addressed important issues, such as the creation of the Fish and Game Commission and the state’s transparency laws. Hummel said these reforms were made possible by the initiative process, and making it harder to pass initiatives would undermine voters’ ability to address issues they care about.
Support for the Amendment
Senator Okuniewicz defended his proposed amendment, saying it would help address concerns about the influence of out-of-state money in Idaho’s initiative process. He argued that special interest groups from outside the state are using the initiative process to push through laws that may not reflect the values of Idaho residents. Okuniewicz also noted that the proposed changes would make the initiative process more consistent with modern technology.
“The people brought this section of the Constitution into existence in 1912, and they can take it out or change it as they see fit,” Okuniewicz said.
However, some lawmakers, including Senate State Affairs Committee Chairman Jim Guthrie, expressed skepticism that the amendment would reduce out-of-state spending or increase transparency around campaign finance.
Governor Veto Bill Rejected by House Committee
In addition to the proposed amendment, House Bill 85, introduced by Skaug, sought to give the governor the power to veto voter-approved laws that did not have supermajority support. Skaug argued that such a measure would protect voters from being misled by incomplete information when passing laws.
Under the bill, if a ballot initiative passed with less than two-thirds support, the governor could veto it. However, initiatives passing with at least two-thirds support would be immune from a veto. Skaug argued that this system would create a balance of power, similar to how the Legislature operates.
The bill faced criticism from lawmakers who felt it would undermine the people’s right to pass laws. Representative Stephanie Mickelsen (R-Idaho Falls) pointed out that the Legislature already has mechanisms in place to address concerns with voter-approved laws, such as calling themselves back into session to amend or repeal them.
Rep. Todd Achilles (D-Boise) also argued that the bill would effectively lower the power of voters to legislate compared to the Legislature, which can pass laws with a simple majority.
Future of the Proposals
The proposed constitutional amendment will now move to the Idaho Senate floor, where it will require a two-thirds majority to pass. If it passes the Senate, it will then need approval from the House of Representatives before being put to a vote by the public.
The proposed governor veto bill has been effectively stopped for now, but its sponsor, Skaug, may reconsider pushing it forward at a later date.
Conclusion
The debate over changes to Idaho’s initiative and referendum process is far from over. While the proposed amendment to raise signature requirements has advanced in the Senate, opposition to these changes remains strong. As lawmakers continue to debate the role of voters in shaping Idaho’s laws, the balance of power between the Legislature and the people remains a central point of contention.