Committee advances bill to expand indecent exposure language; witnesses sharply divided

The House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee voted to send House Bill 270 to the House floor with a due-pass recommendation after an hour-plus of public testimony and questioning that highlighted sharply divided views on the bill’s language, constitutionality, enforceability and potential effect on transgender people and others.

Representative Jeff Cornelius, R-District 12, sponsored HB 270 and told the committee the bill "clarifies the definitions of willful and indecent exposure" in Idaho Code Title 18, section 4116. Cornelius said the bill targets "a few bad actors" and is intended to require that "men and women need to have private parts covered while they're in public." He said the measure was prompted by incidents at public events in Nampa and elsewhere where, he said, people exposed breasts in ways local police said current law did not clearly prohibit. "Local police has stated, this addition to the current law would assist us," Cornelius said.

Nampa City Councilman Sebastian Griffin testified in support, recounting an event he attended at Lakeview Park in which he said "a woman who was exposing herself to a group of individuals, some of which were children," and he described a police officer saying the conduct was not illegal under current law. Representative Steve Tanner, R-District 13, also spoke in favor, saying the intent is to address offensive public behavior, not to target any group.

Opponents urged rejection of the bill. Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates’ representative Misty Tolman called the language "vague, overbroad and unconstitutional," saying it "threatens the right, safety and dignity of transgender individuals, LGBTQ communities, and anyone else whose appearance does not conform with gender norms." Nixon Matthews, a transgender man who testified, listed three concerns: the bill’s subjective standard of what is "offensive," its broad reach into private places “where there is present another person,” and the steep penalties that could escalate to a felony after repeated misdemeanors. William Mitchell of Legal Voice warned the committee the provision could sweep in medical conditions such as gynecomastia, which causes breast tissue development in males.

Several residents and organizational representatives described the incident in Nampa and said law enforcement and prosecutors had lacked statutory authority. Witnesses supporting the bill emphasized protection of children and local community standards; witnesses opposing it emphasized vagueness, discrimination risk, enforcement difficulties and disproportionate penalties. Some testified that the public incident was contained within a fenced, tented area and questioned whether the state statute should reach conduct in semi-private or private spaces.

Committee members asked detailed questions about the bill’s specific language, including the phrase "adult male breasts that have been medically or hormonally altered to appear like developing or developed female breasts," whether the bill requires proof of intent or voluntariness, and how the law would apply to medical conditions such as gynecomastia. Sponsors said the added language was intended to capture deliberate modification intended to appear like female breasts and to modernize code for current events; opponents said the language still left too much ambiguity and could criminalize nonintentional medical conditions.

After debate, Representative Hill moved to send HB 270 to the floor with a due-pass recommendation. Representative Gannon offered a substitute motion to send the bill to general orders, citing concern that the statutory language would reach private homes and backyards; the substitute motion failed on a roll-call vote, 6–9 (yes: Chairman Skog; Garner; Handy; Gannon; Mathias; Bridal). The committee then voted by roll call to advance HB 270 to the floor with a due-pass recommendation; the motion carried 12–3. The transcript records the no votes on the final motion from Representative Gannon and Representative Mathias and one additional no recorded in the roll-call sequence; the committee chair announced the final tally as 12–3.

The committee record shows both supporters and opponents urged careful drafting; several speakers asked for clearer language around intent, medical conditions and the statute’s reach into private spaces. The transcript shows questions about the bill’s penalty structure: sponsors said the bill’s drafting aligns with contemporary criminal-code drafting practices and indicated the felony threshold would come after multiple misdemeanor convictions under the updated language.

Having advanced HB 270 to the floor, the committee concluded its business for the day.