House Bill 824 died in a 33-36 vote. The legislation had been reworked twice, and objections from legislators led to $307,000 being cut from the commission’s budget, which would eliminate a statewide e-book collection. The ongoing money had been used annually to purchase new e-book and e-audio titles for K-12 students at all Idaho schools, since many districts lack an adequate book budget. The e-books in the collection are also available to homeschooled students and others through most public libraries.

Republicans didn’t believe the cut went far enough, leading them to kill the bill. Assistant Democratic Leader Lauren Necochea (D-Boise) said it was clear the attack on library funding was motivated by GOP legislators’ desire for vengeance over House Bill 666, which sought to criminalize librarians, being held in the Senate.

“The revised budget already punished Idaho students, reducing their access to books so that House GOP legislators could make a political statement,” Necochea said. “This vote was senseless retribution against the librarians who spoke out against the absurd House Bill 666. When you propose legislation that threatens jail time and fines for librarians, you should expect their opposition. Ultimately, Idaho’s children are paying the price with diminished access to books, especially in schools with limited resources.”

The budget will now have to be revised in the Joint Finance-Appropriation Committee, then pass both the House and Senate before the legislature can adjourn.

Rep. James Ruchti

House Bill 782 passed the body in a 44-24 vote Friday and now heads to the Senate. The bill expands the council from seven members to 11. Currently, it is composed of three non-attorneys, a district court judge, two attorneys appointed by the Idaho State Bar Association with approval from the Idaho Senate, and the chief justice of the Idaho Supreme Court, who serves as the chair. The governor selects the three non-attorney members, all of whom must also be confirmed by the Senate. Under the legislation, the governor would select 8 of the 11 members, going from roughly 40% control to over 70%. It also gives the governor the power to reject one list of nominees from the council for any judicial appointment and get a new list of names.

Republicans suspended the rules to speed up the voting process on the legislation. It went before the House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee Thursday and passed in a 10-7 vote after lengthy debate, which revealed strong opposition from the judicial branch. A spokesperson for the state Supreme Court said the justices were not consulted for feedback and only received the bill Wednesday — the same day Chief Justice Richard Bevan left the country on a long-planned trip. Opposition also was expressed by five former justices, who submitted a joint letter to lawmakers against the bill.

Rep. Colin Nash

Rep. James Ruchti (D-Pocatello), an attorney and former president of the Idaho Trial Lawyers Association, said if signed into law, the legislation would bring politics into the judicial selection process, jeopardize the courts’ independence and create unequal branches of government.

“This bill shifts the influence of the governor’s office heavily. The independence of the judiciary is essential,” Ruchti said. “There are some in the legislature who are angry with the Idaho Supreme Court because it has deemed many bills passed here as unconstitutional. But rather than write better legislation, they want to do a full upheaval of the judicial council so they can better control who serves on the courts. The legislature has a habit of trying to solve non-existent problems. The council has operated in its current form for over 50 years, and backers of this bill have failed to cite any real issues with the system we have now.”

Rep. Colin Nash (D-Boise), also an attorney, echoed Ruchti and called the legislation “a monumental expansion of gubernatorial authority over the judiciary, which will weaken its independence and risks the politicization of Idaho’s courts.”

The bill, which later passed the House, increases the grocery tax credit by $20 per person starting in the 2023 tax year. The motion sought to amend the legislation to instead repeal the grocery tax versus increasing the credit. Democrats have advocated for eliminating the sales tax on groceries throughout the 2022 session, since it would help Idaho’s working families each time they shop.

“We have been saying all along that if the legislature pushed $600 million out the door for corporate and income tax cuts benefiting the wealthy, we would not have dollars available for meaningful tax solutions that benefit working Idahoans. House Bill 509 illustrates this exact result: all the legislature can now do is promise a modest benefit for regular Idahoans two years from now,” Asst. House Democratic Leader Lauren Necochea said. 

The proposed increase to the grocery tax credit is modest, and doesn’t fully account for inflation that has occurred since the credit was last updated and the expected inflation that will occur before the bill takes effect, Necochea said. Idahoans wouldn’t receive the benefit until they file taxes in 2024. If the state is going to promise this future benefit to Idahoans, Democrats have stressed the need for a bolder proposal providing meaningful aid.

“The House GOP has an ongoing pattern of providing huge tax breaks for people at the top, and only after their priorities are brought to light, throwing occasional bread crumbs to working Idahoans,” House Democratic Caucus Chair Sally Toone said. “Our people need help. We receive calls and emails from constituents daily asking us to repeal the grocery tax. As lawmakers, we have a duty to listen to the people of Idaho, but the majority party isn’t doing that. House Bill 509 isn’t nearly enough. Our working families deserve real help.”

“We need inflation relief now. At 9%, Idaho is a hotspot for inflation and Idahoans need inflation relief, not $20 two years from now,” Rep. John Gannon said. “We also need to address the homeowners exemption and quit borrowing and spending money. Policies need to change.”

Rep. Steve Berch

A politician tends to only represent the people who vote for them. A statesman strives to represent everyone in their constituency whether they voted for them or not. This doesn’t mean you agree with everyone on every issue all the time. It does mean you respect those good ideas – no matter where they come from – by incorporating them into the work you do.

It’s much easier to be a politician than a statesman:

• It’s much easier to inflame emotions with false and misleading messages to win votes.
• It’s much easier to make decisions based on what you want to believe is true, instead of doing the due diligence to know what is true.
• It’s much easier to tell voters what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear.

A statesman, however, works to bring people together and listens for points of agreement, instead of arguing about where they disagree. With agreement, you can establish trust and respect, which is the first step toward working together to solve problems.

A statesman builds a consensus among colleagues to tackle difficult issues. It takes patience and good listening skills to resolve major issues that require the agreement of at least 36 representatives, 18 senators, and 1 governor.

A statesman has the courage to make decisions that may not be popular in the short term, but necessary to secure a beneficial long-term outcome.

A statesman is more concerned about achieving results than getting the credit.

The road toward becoming a statesman starts by knocking on doors and talking one-on-one with a broad spectrum of one’s constituency. You learn the issues that really affect people’s daily lives. You learn to respect people of all political affiliations and treat them with civility in both word and deed. You become a better public servant and a better person.

This is why I choose the road that leads to being a statesman.

Unfortunately, this road is less traveled by too many incumbents and candidates these days. To be clear, several of my legislative colleagues on both sides of the aisle are statesmen. We listen and learn from each other to our mutual benefit, even if we disagree at times.

However, too many choose to be politicians. It is discouraging to see bills promoting ideological purity that divide communities and punish those who disagree. It is dangerous when legislators give credibility to false and misleading information in an effort to curry favor with voters.

If we continue traveling down this increasingly rancorous road, we wind up with a government that rejects accountability after being elected; that doesn’t care about those that disagree with them; that believes the ends justify the means – which leads to operating without a moral or ethical compass.

We wind up with a state without statesmen.

There is a path forward. Voters need to know who the people on their ballot really are. Ask yourself: Is the candidate taking your vote for granted? Do they make it easy to contact them? Have they knocked on your door? Do they want to talk with you or at you?

If you want more statesmen and fewer politicians in the legislature, vote for the person – not a letter or a color.

Rep. Sally Toone

On Wednesday, the House Commerce and Human Resources Committee refused to introduce legislation to allow employees suffering with work-related post-traumatic stress injury (PTSI) to seek workers’ compensation.

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Sally Toone (D-Gooding), died on a 5-7 vote. It would have added a new section to the state Workers’ Compensation system to cover treatment for PTSI for employees who are currently not covered through the program. PTSI is recognized as a legitimate workplace injury for first responders, but not for other occupations unless there is an accompanying physical injury.

“People in certain occupations, such as coroners, bear witness to atrocities. The trauma they experience puts them at risk for PTSI, which makes it harder for them to stay on the job and care for their families. It is also linked to suicide and substance abuse,” Toone said. “We should expand access to services, so we can make sure people receive the support they need when they need it the most.”

Toone said the vote is especially disappointing when state officials have increasingly advocated to improve behavioral health systems, and even created the Idaho Behavioral Health Council, which includes members of all three branches of government, in the last year to examine the issue statewide and make recommendations to better Idahoans’ access to care.

Thirty-four states — including Alaska, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Utah — allow workers in the Workers’ Compensation system to seek work-related PTSI coverage. Mental Health America reports adult Idahoans have a higher prevalence of mental illness and lower rates of access to care. As a whole, the state ranks 49th for mental health services.

“Idaho is falling behind when it comes to behavioral health,” Toone said. “Horrific events can occur in all fields, and when those incidents happen, we have to make sure employees receive proper care. Addressing PTSI is critical to keeping our workforce healthy, so that people are able to heal and go back to work in a safe manner.”

House Bill 442 would prevent cities from setting reasonable maximum fees or deposits for residential rental properties, like application fees or pet deposits. With cities unable to ensure these basic protections, there are no checks on unscrupulous landlords who can bankrupt families with exorbitant fees. 

Idaho is home to some of the most overvalued housing markets in America, which ripens opportunities for exploitative practices against desperate renters, and HB 442 weakens the ability of local officials to respond to this crisis. The National Low Income Housing Coalition shows 30% of Idahoans are renters. As the legislation is written, landlords would be able to collect application fees or security deposits from an unlimited number of people, charging whatever they want, without ever having to prove a unit is even available.

“This bill is proof that Idaho renters have no allies in the Idaho GOP. This bill offends the notion that the government closest to the people governs best and paves the way for tenants to be exploited by out-of-state property managers who are gobbling up investment properties at the expense of Idahoans who are increasingly struggling to afford a most basic human need, a place to live,” Rep. Colin Nash said.

“Government should protect consumers from unscrupulous bad actors. This bill protects unscrupulous bad actors from consumers,”  Rep. Steve Berch said.

“Our local communities should have the right to respond to the pressing issues impacting them. The application fee ordinance was the city of Boise’s appropriate response to the predatory behavior that is preventing our neighbors from putting a roof above their heads. Until we have a statewide solution, I will continue to support my community in protecting renters from this egregious behavior,” Rep. Brooke Green said.

“While many long-standing Idaho landlords treat renters fairly, we are seeing an increase in out-of-state investors turning the desperation of renters into quick cash with predatory fees. With a severe shortage of homes and prices skyrocketing, Idahoans are easy targets. This bill takes away the ability of local leaders to provide basic consumer protections so that Idaho families can get a fair shake,” Rep. Lauren Necochea said. 

Rep. John McCrostie

House Bill 483, sponsored by Rep. John McCrostie, received almost unanimous support for a full hearing. It mirrors recent legislation approved in Utah in 2020. Currently, 20 states have outlawed conversion therapy for minors.

McCrostie said conversion therapy is defined as any practice or treatment that seeks to change a patient’s sexual orientation or gender identity. If passed, it would prevent an Idaho licensed mental health professional from utilizing conversion therapy with minors. Conversion therapy is broadly discredited by numerous medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Counseling Association. It also poses high risk for severe depression, anxiety, drug and alcohol abuse, homelessness and suicide. 

The Trevor Project, the world’s largest suicide prevention and crisis intervention organization for LGBTQ youth, conducted a study in 2020 that found youth who had undergone conversion therapy were more than twice as likely to report having attempted suicide. The organization’s 2021 National Survey on LGBTQ Youth Mental Health showed that 13% of LGBTQ youth reported being subjected to conversion therapy, with 83% reporting it occurred when they were under age 18. Most were 15 years old at the time.

“Today, we are one step closer to making sure LGBTQ youth in Idaho are protected from this dangerous practice that has led so many young people to take their lives. Idaho’s rate of suicide, 5th highest in the U.S. as of 2020, is 1.5 times higher than the national average — that statistic is similar for Idaho teens as well,” McCrostie said. “By banning conversion therapy for minors, we can prevent suicide and better safeguard our LGBTQ youth, helping put them on the path to future success.”

Rep. Lauren Necochea

We were disappointed to see our high hopes dashed so quickly when the GOP rushed to advance House Bill 436. In doubling-down on the trickle-down approach from last year, Republicans are closing the door on important policies Idahoans want.

It is past time we prioritize working families. Every major tax bill the legislature has passed for more than a decade has prioritized profitable corporations and people at the top of the income spectrum. We must balance this out by focusing on the needs of everyday Idahoans, such as repealing the sales tax on groceries, increasing property tax assistance, and using state funds to plug the holes in school budgets that must be filled by supplemental levies paid for with property taxes. With a $600 million price tag, HB436 will gobble up dollars we need to deliver far more critical tax solutions.

Just like last year’s tax bill, the benefits of HB436 are completely lopsided. The priorities of GOP legislators are upside down when they want to send $8,000 checks to households in the top 1% and $75 to Idahoans who work for modest wages. The ongoing tax benefits follow a similar pattern. The top 1% will receive an ongoing yearly tax cut of $5,000, on average. Idahoans with modest incomes will receive little to no ongoing benefit.

We should instead be putting more dollars in the hands of working families. This is not only popular among Idahoans, it is better for our economy. Working Idahoans power our local economies when they buy groceries, get an oil change, or have their hair cut. Small businesses depend on a strong middle class to thrive.

Rep. James Ruchti

What we do not need are more tax cuts for profitable corporations. HB436 would result in the lowest corporate tax rates of this century, landing at just 6%. Yes, corporations would pay the same tax rate on their profits that regular Idahoans pay in sales tax on food, diapers, medicines, and other necessities.

Bad economics aside, this bill is troubling in another way. As we write this, we are still receiving emails from regular Idahoans asking us to oppose HB436, and instead reduce property taxes, repeal the grocery tax, and make sure schools are well funded. Neither of us has been contacted by a single constituent asking for this bill. Even in committee, every constituent who testified opposed it. Only lobbyists testified in favor.

Our political system is seriously broken when the GOP supermajority rams through a bill that voters are asking us to reject. We don’t believe the legislature has ever thrown such a hefty sum of money ($600 million) at something Idahoans clearly don’t want. Idahoans deserve better. They deserve leaders who will listen and deliver the policies they support.

We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to make the state of Idaho a place where working families can thrive and live their best lives. Let’s use the dollars available to provide meaningful tax reform to working Idahoans and improve our schools. Let’s do what Idahoans are asking us to do.

Rep. Lauren Necochea

House Bill 436 passed and now moves to the Senate. All Democrats voted against the legislation, and instead advocated more critical tax solutions, such as reducing property taxes or repealing the sales tax on groceries — both of which would bolster Idaho’s working families or local economies. The income tax cut is in large part funded by internet sales tax, a more regressive form of taxation paid disproportionately by those with lower and middle incomes, creating a reverse Robin Hood effect.

Per the legislation, someone with $1 million in annual taxable income will receive an ongoing yearly tax cut of over $5,000 on top of a nearly $8,000 one-time rebate. Idahoans with the most modest incomes will receive a rebate of about $75. 

Rep. James Ruchti said Idahoans have expressed a clear desire for property tax relief, a repeal of the grocery tax, and adequately funded schools. However, the bill — which has a one-time cost of $350 million in addition to an ongoing cost of $250 million — effectively precludes the state’s ability to eliminate the grocery tax while meeting the other stated funding objectives.

Rep. James Ruchti

“Idahoans want property tax relief, to be able to feed their families, to have well-funded schools, good paying jobs, and sustainable infrastructure. Nowhere on that list will you find people clamoring for an income tax cut,” Ruchti said. “We need to put dollars in the hands of people who need it most.”

Assistant House Democratic Leader Lauren Necochea said small businesses depend on a strong middle class to thrive, but the legislation does nothing to bolster Idaho’s working families or local economies. Instead, it would reduce the corporate income tax rate from 6.5% to 6%, leaving in place the sales tax rate people pay for food, diapers, medicines, and other needs. 

According to the Idaho State Tax Commission’s Tax Burden Study, Idaho is already below the national average for corporate taxes collected relative to state income, at 1%.

Rep. Ilana Rubel

“What we do not need are more tax cuts for profitable corporations. More than 80% of revenue cuts that benefit corporations ultimately flow out of state. That does not build a vibrant Main Street,” Necochea said. “Our political system is seriously broken when the GOP supermajority rams through a bill that voters are asking us to reject.”

House Democratic Leader Ilana Rubel said the bill highlights the legislature’s blatant disregard for the wants and needs of everyday Idahoans.

“This bill literally takes from the poor and gives to the rich at a time when the state has yet to allocate a single penny in the budget toward education, infrastructure or other vital needs. This is not how responsible government should work. Fix the schools, and the bridges and the critical problems first, then consider whether giant tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy and most profitable corporations make sense,” Rubel said. “I want grocery tax repeal, property tax reductions — the tax cuts that help working families meaningfully, that help fixed-income seniors, and that the people of Idaho actually want.”

Rep. Lauren Necochea

The House Revenue and Taxation Committee forwarded House Bill 436 to the full body in a party-line vote following the public hearing. Every constituent who testified spoke against the bill; only lobbyists were in favor.

Per the legislation, someone with $1 million in annual taxable income will receive an ongoing yearly tax cut of $5,000 on top of a nearly $8,000 one-time rebate. Idahoans with the most modest incomes will receive a rebate of $75. The bill also reduces the corporate income tax rate from 6.5% to 6%, matching the sales tax rate people pay for food, diapers, medicines, and other needs. 

Assistant House Democratic Leader Lauren Necochea spoke against the costly legislation in committee, and said if passed, the bill will gobble up dollars that should be used for more critical tax solutions, such as reducing property taxes or repealing the sales tax on groceries. She added that it does nothing to bolster Idaho’s working families or local economies.

“The priorities of GOP legislators are upside down when they want to send $8,000 checks to households in the top 1% and $75 to Idahoans who work for modest wages,” Necochea said. “We need more dollars in the hands of working Idahoans who power our local economies when they buy groceries, get an oil change, or have their hair cut.”

Rep. James Ruchti

Her comments were echoed by Rep. James Ruchti, who also expressed concern that once the legislature decides to commit funds toward another income tax cut, there would be no money available to address the real needs of Idahoans.

Both said they haven’t been contacted by a single constituent asking for income tax cuts, but many have asked for repealing the grocery tax, meaningful property tax relief, well-funded schools, and sustainable infrastructure.

“It’s clear; this is not the tax bill Idahoans want. Idahoans are very clear that they want property tax solutions and a repeal of the sales tax on groceries. No one is asking for income tax or corporate tax cuts,” Ruchti said. “This year, we have the opportunity to be creative and really invest in our working families. This proposal only leaves them further behind.”

According to the Idaho State Tax Commission’s Tax Burden Study, Idaho ranks 18th for corporate taxes collected relative to state income, at 1% below the national average.