Idaho lawmakers launch another attack on initiative rights | Idaho Statesman
OPINION AND COMMENTARY

Editorials and other Opinion content offer perspectives on issues important to our community and are independent from the work of our newsroom reporters.

Editorials

Power-hungry Idaho lawmakers launch another attack on the people’s initiative rights | Opinion

Backpacks filled with signature forms from Idaho counties lined the steps of the Capitol during a press conference by Reclaim Idaho announcing their collection of more than 100,000 signatures for their Quality Education Act initiative.
Backpacks filled with signature forms from Idaho counties lined the steps of the Capitol during a press conference by Reclaim Idaho announcing their collection of more than 100,000 signatures for their Quality Education Act initiative. smiller@idahostatesman.com

Right now, Idahoans who want to go outside the legislature to change policy have to get signatures from 6% of registered voters in the state, along with 6% in at least 18 of 35 legislative districts. It’s a massive hurdle that only a few have cleared in recent years.

A constitutional amendment proposed by Rep. Doug Okuniewicz on Jan. 25 would make the hurdle practically impossible to clear. Okuniewicz has proposed to turn a law that was ruled unconstitutional by the Idaho Supreme Court in 2021 into a constitutional amendment.

In other words, if the Supreme Court rules something is unconstitutional, the obvious answer is to change the constitution. So thinks the Idaho Legislature, no doubt emboldened by voters’ recent decision to allow it to call itself back into session.

The Idaho Legislature has pushed against the ability of cities, counties and the governor to check its power. Add to the list the judiciary and voters.

The amendment would require that 6% of registered voters in each and every legislative district, rather than just 18 of 35, sign a petition to get a citizens’ initiative on the ballot. It would effectively eliminate the right.

“Rather than evenly distributing power across the state, the Legislature has achieved just the opposite. By requiring a threshold of support from every legislative district in the state, the Legislature has essentially given every legislative district veto power over qualifying initiatives and referenda for the ballot,” wrote Justice Greg Moeller in his memorable opinion striking down the law.

The proposed changes do not protect rural interests, as proponents will no doubt claim. They would silence rural areas forever. Any policy that a rural area wanted to propose could be vetoed by any one of five legislative districts in Boise, or by either of the two districts in Nampa, or by Coeur d’Alene, Idaho Falls, Caldwell or Twin Falls. Any one of these neighborhoods or cities could completely block any rural initiative from the ballot.

In fact, the only way to ensure rural representation is to do the precise opposite of what lawmakers have proposed. If lawmakers reduced the number of districts in which signatures were required, then rural areas could more easily propose initiatives without support from cities. If it took only 10 legislative districts, for example, then south-central and eastern Idaho could band together to propose an initiative. So could the panhandle and central Idaho.

And no matter who proposes the initiative, everyone in the state gets a vote. No initiative can pass without significant support from rural areas in a rural state like Idaho — as happened with Medicaid expansion, which was broadly supported by rural areas and which has helped keep rural hospitals from facing closure.

And there is no evidence that Idaho is being swamped by ballot initiatives. No initiative has appeared on the ballot since 2018. That’s evidence the hurdle is already too high because the Legislature has refused to follow the will of the people.

For example, polling indicates that about two-thirds of Idaho voters support the legalization of medical cannabis, but an initiative along those lines has repeatedly failed to gather enough signatures to make the ballot. It’s simply a massive undertaking.

Lawmakers have remained unwilling to budge on the issue, so people who use marijuana to combat nausea from chemotherapy continue to face possible jail sentences, despite the fact that almost no one thinks they should.

The amendment proposed by Okuniewicz is asking for more power to remain insentient to the will of the people. It is a proposal for the Legislature to cast off checks on its authority, to become more narrow and imperious.

This is nothing new. Without the initiative, Idaho would not have campaign finance disclosure or lobbyist registration laws. The Sunshine Laws were passed by voter initiative, and the Legislature has only moved to narrow them since.

Because the Legislature works to enlarge its own governmental power, and it opposes all measures to rein it in. That’s just the nature of the beast. Voters shouldn’t play into their hands.

Statesman editorials are the unsigned opinion of the Idaho Statesman’s editorial board. Board members are opinion editor Scott McIntosh, opinion writer Bryan Clark, editor Chadd Cripe, newsroom editors Dana Oland and Jim Keyser and community members Johanna Jones and Maryanne Jordan.

This story was originally published January 26, 2023, 4:00 AM.

CORRECTION: This story has been updated to correctly state the effect of the Sunshine Laws.

Corrected Jan 27, 2023

BEHIND OUR REPORTING

What is an editorial?

Statesman editorials are the unsigned opinion expressing the consensus of the Idaho Statesman’s editorial board. The editorial board is composed of journalists and community members and is separate from the Statesman’s newsroom. Members of the editorial board are Statesman editor Chadd Cripe, opinion editor Scott McIntosh, opinion writer Bryan Clark, newsroom editors Jim Keyser and Dana Oland and community members Mary Rohlfing and Patricia Nilsson.

How does the editorial board operate?

The editorial board meets weekly and sometimes invites subjects to board meetings to interview them personally to gain a better understanding of the topic. Board members also communicate throughout the week via email to discuss issues and provide input on editorials on topics as they are happening in real time. Editorials are intended to be part of an ongoing civil discussion with the ultimate goal of providing solutions to community problems and making this a better place to live, work and play.

Why are editorials unsigned?

Editorials reflect the collective views of the Statesman’s editorial board — not just the opinion of one writer. An editorial is a collective opinion based on a group discussion among members of the board members. While the editorial is written by one person, typically the opinion editor, it represents the opinions and viewpoints expressed by members of the editorial board after discussion and research on the topic.

Want your say?

Readers are encouraged to express their thoughts by submitting a letter to the editor. Click on “Submit a letter or opinion” at idahostatesman.com/opinion.

Want more opinions each week?

Subscribe to The Idaho Way weekly email newsletter, a collection of editorials, columns, guest opinions and letters to the editor from the Opinion section of the Idaho Statesman each week. You can sign up for The Idaho Way here.

Get unlimited digital access
#ReadLocal

Try 1 month for $1

CLAIM OFFER
Copyright Privacy Policy Your Privacy Choices Terms of Service