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.”

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. Ilana Rubel

House Democratic Leader Ilana Rubel, D-Boise, debated strongly against it, and said the bill seeks to make an already onerous process ostensibly impossible by doubling the district signature requirements needed. Rubel said Idaho already is the hardest state to qualify a measure for the ballot. In the past decade, Medicaid expansion is the only initiative to pass, and it would not have come close to qualifying under SB1110.

“If y’all are afraid of what the people of Idaho want to do and what their agenda is, and you feel it is important to block that, you may be in the wrong line of work,” Rubel said in her debate. A survey from Boise State University showed 80% of Idahoans opposed adding restrictions.

Rep. Colin Nash

Proponents of the bill argued it gives rural Idahoans more of a voice in the legislative process. But in his debate, Rep. Colin Nash, D-Boise, showed the divide between urban and rural voters is a myth, as demonstrated by Idaho ballot measure election results by county from 1990-2020.

“Our ballot initiative process has allowed citizens of Idaho to pass laws when the Idaho Legislature fails to act. From Medicaid expansion to the popular homeowner’s exemption that protects residents from rapid property tax increases,” Nash said. “We must stand up for Idahoans’ constitutional right to enact laws independent of the Legislature, not silence and suppress them.”

The bill now moves to the governor’s desk for consideration. The Democratic caucus strongly urges his veto.

A tax structure should lift up working Idaho families and build a thriving middle class. It should never tax working families into financial hardship. The Idaho Working Families Agenda lifts up Idahoans in two ways. First, it increases the child tax credit to $250 and allows every family — not just the highest earners — to access the full value of the credit. Second, it creates a sliding-scale tax credit for working Idahoans, putting hundreds of dollars back into their pockets.

Rep. Lauren Necochea

Our communities rely on the services that property taxes provide, including emergency response, law enforcement and schools. The problem is we are shifting more of the tax load onto homeowners. For years, Idaho’s homeowner exemption rose with housing costs. This protected homeowners from steep increases in their property tax bills and helped maintain a fair balance of the tax load between homes and other types of real estate. Republicans in the Legislature capped this exemption in 2016. Now homeowners are paying increasingly more each year while commercial property owners  are paying less. Additionally, the Legislature has failed to update the property tax assistance program for seniors and Idahoans with disabilities since 2006.

The Idaho Working Families Agenda restores balance by increasing the homeowner’s exemption and reinstating the annual adjustment so it increases with housing costs. This will maintain a fair balance between different types of property over time. We also propose to double our property tax assistance for seniors by increasing the amount of assistance and making more Idahoans eligible.

Our agenda stands in stark contrast to the tax plan the House GOP leaders revealed this week. That plan has steep tax cuts for only the highest earners and most profitable corporations. This is paid for, in part, by eliminating the popular grocery tax credit that helps everyone. This means a family of four earning less than $75,000 can expect to pay more in taxes under the GOP plan. This is the playbook the Idaho GOP has been following for decades. With every round of cuts, the top 1% receives thousands of dollars in benefits, while regular Idahoans receive few benefits or see their taxes go up.

Rep. Colin Nash

Finally, we cannot ignore the dire needs of our schools. Idaho is 50th in the nation for school investment. This stifles our children’s potential. Idaho’s own education experts have long recommended a full-day kindergarten option to improve literacy and other educational outcomes. This commitment to our children is overdue, and the time is now to fund optional full-day kindergarten in every district. Additionally, we must address the severe disruptions in learning brought on by the pandemic. We should dedicate one-time funds leftover from the current budget year to allow schools to add instructional hours, tutors, reading specialists, after-school programming, summer learning programs or other strategies to help our children catch up.

Our Idaho Working Families Agenda balances overdue tax benefits for working families and the school investments our children need. Idahoans shouldn’t need a lobbyist to get a fair shake. It is time to restore balance of power at the legislature and finally put Idaho’s working families first.

House Assistant Minority Leader Rep. Lauren Necochea, D-Boise, presented the proposal during a virtual news conference at 10:30 a.m. Wednesday with members of the media.

Necochea said the plan is both fiscally responsible and sustainable, leveraging the Idaho Tax Relief Fund. She added it achieves two goals: growing a thriving middle class by boosting working families as well as providing much-needed funds for our schools and kids.

“Our Idaho Working Families Agenda focuses on the Idahoans who have been left behind by decades of lopsided tax policies favoring the wealthy and well-connected. Idahoans shouldn’t need a lobbyist to get a fair shake. It is time to restore balance to our tax policies and finally put Idaho’s working families first,” Necochea said in Wednesday’s conference.

Components of the Idaho Working Families Agenda include:
● Increasing the child tax credit and allowing every family to redeem the full value
● Increasing the homeowner’s exemption and pegging it to local housing costs
● Doubling the scale of the property tax assistance program
● Offering the option of full-day kindergarten in ​every​ district
● Providing schools with one-time funding for additional instruction to help students catch up to grade level after a year of learning disruptions due to COVID-19
● Creating a sliding-scale tax credit for working Idahoans

Necochea said unlike the House GOP’s tax plan, House Bill 199, it does not raise taxes for any Idaho households and retains the grocery tax credit to help families offset the sales tax they pay on food. She added it also directs tax benefits to working Idaho families and children, not giveaways to the highest earners and large profitable corporations.

“Our agenda stands in stark contrast to the tax plan that the House GOP leaders revealed yesterday, which focuses on steep tax cuts for profitable corporations and people at the top of the income spectrum. This is the playbook that the Idaho GOP has been following for decades, and it leaves working families behind,” Necochea said. “When we put dollars back into the hands of working families, there is a ripple effect across local economies. As families get needed car repairs, buy groceries, and have their hair cut, those dollars, in turn spur additional economic activity and build wealth across the community.”

“It’s time for us to enact policies that truly address the needs of Idaho’s working families,” added Rep. Colin Nash, D-Boise, who co-authored the plan with Necochea. “This plan delivers results to those who need it most.”

Learn more about the Idaho Working Families Plan:

While speculating about the hypothetical political opinions of people who died a quarter-millennium ago may be a questionable way to govern ourselves today, for those who believe the secrets of liberty lie somewhere in the past, it is worth considering our nation was founded in the midst of an epidemic. This required the founders to wrestle with similarly controversial matters of public health, the successful navigation of which proved critical to our nation’s early successes.

During the American Revolution, a smallpox outbreak in New England hobbled General George Washington‘s ability to wage an aggressive campaign during the Siege of Boston, dragging it on for nearly a year. Washington feared an outbreak among his own troops, which had decimated the Continental Army’s failed Invasion of Quebec, according to an article in the Journal of Military History. Washington would at times only advance with troops immune to smallpox, and eventually ordered a lockdown during the outbreak that prohibited his soldiers from contact with Boston residents, even their own families. Amid rumors British spies were intentionally introducing smallpox to the Continental Army, as was done against Native Americans during the French and Indian War, Washington needed a public health solution to protect his troops. 

Fifty years earlier, an African-born Bostonian named Onesimus introduced a traditional African remedy for smallpox to the colonies known as inoculation, which involved the introduction of fluid from the pustule of a smallpox patient into a healthy person’s incision. The individual would contract a mild case of the disease and quarantine until they were no longer infectious, providing permanent immunity to the individual and the best available preventative measure. Although a common practice among Black and Native American populations during the Revolutionary Period, it was controversial among white colonists. In addition to sometimes proving fatal, without proper quarantine procedures it led to community spread. This gave inoculation a dangerous reputation, and vigorous anti-inoculation campaigns prompted it’s outlaw in Massachusetts, and it was even punishable by death in the Continental Army.

Convinced of the seriousness of the threat of smallpox to the war effort, Washington took action against its spread by reversing prohibitions against inoculation and mandating the procedure for the entire Continental Army. Officers were resistant to the order, and it took months of angry letters from Washington before it was fully implemented. Once the mass inoculation campaign began, Washington systematized social distancing measures to prevent the threat of outbreaks posed by the recently inoculated. Within a year the Continental Army was effectively immune from smallpox, allowing Washington to engage the British uninhibited by the disease that previously hindered his military campaigns. The rest is history.

Notions that today’s public health interventions pose a novel threat to our liberty or are somehow fundamentally un-American are no doubt rooted in passion, but not in reality. Like Washington, we must appreciate that freedom from an oppressive government is not the only freedom worth fighting for. We’re fighting for freedom from unsafe working and classroom conditions, freedom from life and death decisions made when health care is rationed during a spike, and freedom from the fear of unknowingly infecting a vulnerable loved one with a virus that is killing too many. And like Washington in the face of opposition, those of us who continue to advocate for public health interventions are indeed patriots, fighting for our freedom against a disease that threatens our very lives and liberty.