[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6280684,"mediaKeyId","2611821-c82a6ce5e0b80ecb31fb5b5b3d9b3940","parentId",2611821,"title","House debate spotlights bill to require lawmakers to disclose out-of-state travel paid by others","audioSeconds",1068,"startMs",9727000,"endMs",10795000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2611821-c82a6ce5e0b80ecb31fb5b5b3d9b3940&start=9727&end=10795","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2611821-c82a6ce5e0b80ecb31fb5b5b3d9b3940/thumbnail_9727000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6280684/Idaho/House-debate-spotlights-bill-to-require-lawmakers-to-disclose-out-of-state-travel-paid-by-others","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6280684-3d92ecdac6b1cdf7c0423bff2b5e0a45/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143643&Signature=otFS14w8Igf1y15XVPWmuYugyZhT5f6GkZLHIBzQxdJ7m0lUBNbGG6xJx04cW5pNuzxJz~mqkKfbuhs~XJYuZ1SEXaqZTpk84d-Y-vHceC7qfv~Nd2R662sKNAS8z7B4YdjXqG9T8I3q~4pN9EQclsYPXnjppIN4thqbH1F0PpCZ1IrJO1deq6CuGbeGorxM6gPS-CpiaXQ4skWQ--x~m-kdAmWv9XhaaoBduOLu~ivkHqiEc60TUzCT5grhprRaT2IAwdiuNxhgn2tQJCVm0lmNY7YuOQQm4BDuzQsybgjaU0HPXsT5EjOHUjvzKxVRxFMrvGUJfvX95SttFOeoxA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Idaho House of Representatives","date","2025-03-12T00:00:00Z","article","Members of the Idaho House debated legislation on March 12 that would require legislators to disclose out-of-state travel paid for by outside entities. The measure under consideration would require a member who receives travel paid by another entity to report the travel destination, dates, purpose and funding source within 30 days; the bill text discussed in floor remarks included a $25 per day fine for failure to file the report. The issue drew extended floor discussion but no final recorded House vote on the legislation appears in the transcript for that legislative day.

Supporters framed the bill as basic disclosure for constituents. “If somebody is paying for me to attend, that is a campaign,” said Representative, District 3 in debate favoring transparency. Representative, District 32, who presented the bill on the floor, said the purpose is to make visible the outside influences that bring legislators to conferences and seminars: the bill would require disclosure of airfare, hotel and related costs when another party pays and the reporting requirement would be posted to make the information available to the public.

Opponents argued the bill’s current language creates unequal obligations, exempting trips paid entirely out of a legislator’s own funds while requiring disclosure when an outside party pays. “To me, this creates kind of a transparency caste system,” said Representative, District 36, who opposed the bill. Other members raised concerns that field-specific conferences might shift inside the state to avoid the reporting threshold and that the bill, as drafted, did not extend the same reporting requirement to agency staff, county officials or executive-branch employees.

Questions on enforcement and scope were frequent in floor debate. One lawmaker asked whether a trip where a legislator paid airfare but an organization covered hotel and meals would still be reportable; the presenter said the bill language covered airfare and hotel and similar travel components, and thus those costs would trigger reporting. Several members suggested the bill needed changes to require equal disclosure from staff and executive-branch appointees or to remove the self-pay exemption if the goal is uniform transparency.

Floor discussion ended with members asking for refinements: some urged broadening the bill to apply equally to staff and agency heads; others asked that the self-pay exception be removed to avoid the appearance of differential treatment. The House adjourned at the end of the day without a recorded final vote on this measure in the provided transcript excerpt. Further committee or floor action will determine whether the bill returns for a final vote and whether its language is amended to address the concerns raised.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Legislative Session Day 66 March 12, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Idaho House debated a bill requiring legislators to disclose out-of-state travel paid for by outside entities, including destination, dates, purpose and payer; floor debate revealed disagreements over scope, exemptions and enforcement, and no final House vote appears in the transcript for the day.","taxTitle","2025 House Legislative Sessions, 2025 Legislative Sessions, Idaho","taxId",77673,"location","Idaho","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6280689,"Idaho House approves $3 million high-needs special education reimbursement fund",2501,6009000,8510000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2611821-c82a6ce5e0b80ecb31fb5b5b3d9b3940&start=6009&end=8510","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2611821-c82a6ce5e0b80ecb31fb5b5b3d9b3940/thumbnail_6009000.jpg","/articles/6280689/Idaho/Idaho-House-approves-3-million-high-needs-special-education-reimbursement-fund","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6280689-cff20ebc93978a5619c57a7033b03175/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143643&Signature=EA1oPJf6Y7wx-0Xt4fv5i-Epcq2HmSAdtUlOtsgucwYF24iNOnrfifB2305r3aTEvpCfzhEL6GRLZx9ik68eKRAFKqjcNYhNPk9Z-RwWDFyVDh2RNnHXwblga4TyYMpYf7AxhhRFL2RagjaaWQQp4~~QtH4xQhCqSDb6SZz6gZN57BYJqcA3CTrHxcXomBE7oxNPBjYXQfnUNUAaOSON~0t0P3QHMFvVSA09yCCnMdK68yB5fFMDwxlBDaQZdeXUxbIA174cD4Fm-qlguP~zG1djIOvYZpgMaJc96XHTYV-n9L~pmu5qxAPjl4D3YXDSjXz9cTokKHGa4iCaWI6EQw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Idaho House passed House Bill 2 91 on March 12, 2025, to create a high-needs special education reimbursement fund with an initial ask of $3,000,000. The bill passed on a roll-call vote, 36 ayes to 34 nays. Sponsors said the fund is a reimbursement mechanism for extraordinary education costs that school districts and charter schools are legally required to provide under federal law.

“Every student in our state with special needs has a right to an IEP,” said Representative, District 30, the bill’s sponsor, describing cases where districts face very high individual-year costs; the sponsor cited one student cost example of $134,000 per year and a district example with 83 high-needs students costing over $2,000,000 annually.

The bill establishes a process in which schools must first pursue all available funding — including federal grants and Medicaid — and then apply to the Department of Education for reimbursement for qualifying high-needs expenses. The sponsor emphasized that this is a reimbursement program, not a general grant or recurring expansion of base funding.

Opponents warned the $3,000,000 initial appropriation would be only a partial fix for what one legislator described as an “about $80,000,000 gap” between current funding and districts’ reported high-needs costs. Representative, District 15 argued the program could grow over time and urged the House to consider whether existing education budgets and spending accountability could be reformed instead of creating a new fund.

Supporters pointed to Supreme Court precedent and federal law requiring services for eligible students. Representative, District 33 and Representative, District 28 described examples from their districts and urged the state to act to relieve local property taxpayers and school budgets. One lawmaker referenced that other states maintain similar “high-needs” funds and that the Idaho Department of Education reviewed the application process to ensure compliance and documentation requirements.

The clerk recorded the final roll-call: 36 ayes, 34 nays. House Bill 2 91 will be transmitted to the Senate for consideration. The bill text and the Department of Education’s application process are on record as the mechanism for reimbursement; sponsors said they anticipate follow-up oversight to monitor claims and ensure Medicaid and other sources are pursued first.","The House passed House Bill 2 91 to create a $3 million reimbursement fund to help school districts and charter schools cover extraordinary costs for high-needs students after other available funds (federal, state, Medicaid) are exhausted. The bill passed 36-34.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6280693,"Idaho House rejects resolution calling for an Article V convention after hours of debate",4849,1125000,5974000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2611821-c82a6ce5e0b80ecb31fb5b5b3d9b3940&start=1125&end=5974","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2611821-c82a6ce5e0b80ecb31fb5b5b3d9b3940/thumbnail_1125000.jpg","/articles/6280693/Idaho/Idaho-House-rejects-resolution-calling-for-an-Article-V-convention-after-hours-of-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6280693-3a9d53f1f1696770c46606fa207f0791/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143643&Signature=H7uMzvpCZr30tFzCrd7d3eBDXnh1MS4t2ClhgFVcN0MES~elkhcgcUqQXn5Rggb~U7zItlIdiCOC8RgiWIBKOY7z69qwIvporzpCfY~IRk~itwDFhxVl0q68Bcldzzngztm18ZU~0uPOtzr8G6JagqGizPzQYBtEYkx0V5sUtivk3KWIXMHx1Jhu3lOaOIBYkWzp5an9ruJBU4hmkX4aXaCnLM0XF-ld3jRd~kIT0JENhyTlTj1kxh5kWQGTNvi0-gSEBVtNeDT9muCHmggzuYH8XGNxjTJiMZl9UXdg-E2lmIFBmrfS7d3cMvlSGCryFv0~FZHmYHpfZgduyUgjyg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Idaho House voted down House Concurrent Resolution 10, a measure calling on Congress to convene a convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, after extended floor debate on March 12, 2025. The roll-call result recorded in the House was 26 ayes and 44 nays, meaning the resolution failed to win a majority.

Supporters said the resolution would pressure Congress to act on structural federal problems, including the federal budget. “We have to stop this spending of money we don't have and keep borrowing,” said Representative, District 7, arguing the country’s fiscal trajectory justified the measure. Representative, District 3, who presented the resolution, described it as a three-part call — for a balanced-budget amendment, congressional term limits and a convention of states — and said the resolution included a seven-year sunset and allowed the legislature to rescind the call.

Opponents warned a convention could be open-ended and risk changing other constitutional protections. “There is absolutely no way to confine this convention to any topics whatsoever,” said Representative, District 19, citing a Congressional Research Service legal analysis and Supreme Court and historical precedents in arguing that limits on a convention’s scope would be difficult to enforce. Representative, District 13 said history shows conventions can deviate from their original mandate and that the country’s current political divisions raise the risk of “a runaway convention.”

Speakers on both sides invoked historical records and constitutional theory. Several members cautioned that even if a convention were intended for specific amendments, delegates chosen and procedures set by Congress and large states could produce outcomes that smaller states or many voters would not support. “We have no idea how those delegates would be assigned,” said Representative, District 14, who cited a 1973 federal proposal and the potential for proportional delegation by population.

The resolution’s sponsor and other supporters argued that a convention call is a legitimate constitutional tool and a way for states to press for federal reform: “The founders gave us the ability,” Representative, District 16 said. Supporters also said the requirement that proposed amendments must be ratified by three-quarters of the states is a strong safeguard.

Ultimately the House rejected the resolution; the clerk recorded the final vote as 26 ayes and 44 nays, short of the majority required for passage. Because the resolution failed, no further committee or enrollment action on this resolution will occur in the House record for this legislative day.

The debate illustrated a deep split in the chamber over the use of Article V and underscored how questions of federal fiscal policy, constitutional risk and political strategy are intersecting in state legislatures this session.","After several hours of floor debate, the Idaho House voted down House Concurrent Resolution 10, which would have put the state’s support behind an Article V “Convention of States” to consider amendments such as a balanced-budget amendment and term limits. The resolution failed on a roll-call vote.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House debate spotlights bill to require lawmakers to disclose out-of-state travel paid by others

Idaho House approves $3 million high-needs special education reimbursement fund

Idaho House rejects resolution calling for an Article V convention after hours of debate