Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Constitutional Defense Fund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to let constitutional defense council consider state help for grazing and water-rights suits
Summary
The Idaho House Resource and Conservation Committee on an unrecorded voice vote agreed to send House Bill 148 to the House floor with a "do pass" recommendation after a lengthy discussion on when and how the state could assist private parties in litigation against the federal government over grazing or water rights.
Get email alerts on the Constitutional Defense Fund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BOISE
The Idaho House Resource and Conservation Committee on an unrecorded voice vote agreed to send House Bill 148 to the House floor with a "do pass" recommendation after a lengthy discussion on when and how the state could assist private parties in litigation against the federal government over grazing or water rights.
The bill, sponsored on the floor by Representative Bruce, would "outline the process for Idaho citizens involved in legal proceedings with the federal government concerning grazing and or water rights to request state assistance from the constitutional defense fund," Bruce told the committee. He said the measure "specifies the criteria, the procedures for the constitutional defense council to consider such request and provide details on types of assistance offered."
The bill drew immediate questions about fiscal exposure and whether the measure would apply retroactively. Representative Andrews noted the fiscal note says the fund already exists and asked if expanding uses would increase costs. Representative Bruce responded that the statute would not compel the council to spend money, saying, "this law doesn't say that they have to take on these cases."
Conservation and legal observers urged caution. Jonathan Oppenheimer, government-relations director for the Idaho Conservation League, said the bill appears to conflict with existing statute and an attorney general letter from February 2009 that limits the council's authority. He warned the measure could raise constitutional issues about using public funds to reimburse private legal costs, quoting an Idaho Supreme Court statement that "taxes cannot be levied and collected or an appropriation made for other than a public purpose." Oppenheimer urged the committee to hold the bill.
Representatives of agricultural interests supported the measure, saying it would provide an option for communities and industries when the state declines to intervene. Russ Hendricks of the Idaho Farm Bureau said the bill "puts some common-sense and reasonable sideboards" around when the council could act and that the intent was forward-looking, not retroactive.
Committee members pressed for clarity on timing and scope. Representative Vanderweil asked whether a petitioner could request assistance during a lawsuit; Bruce replied petitions could be filed "in the middle of it" or after a case has concluded, so long as the matter arose after the statute takes effect. Multiple lawmakers expressed concern over the bill—s language defining a petitioner as "any Idaho citizen who is or was in a legal proceeding," and some asked whether the word "was" could be removed to avoid retroactivity; the sponsor said he expects the council to decline requests for pre-enactment cases, but declined to accept an amendment on the floor during the committee discussion.
Representative Bruce provided historical spending figures for the Constitutional Defense Fund as context: "in 2017 they spent $151,000; in 2019 they spent $487,000; in 2021 about $206,000; fiscal year '22 about $151,000; and nothing was spent in 2023," he said during questions. Committee members cited those numbers while warning that private litigation against the federal government can cost far more and that taking cases could expose taxpayers to large bills.
The committee accepted a motion to forward the bill to the full House with a do-pass recommendation. The motion passed by voice vote; the transcript does not record a roll-call tally.
What happened next
The committee sent House Bill 148 to the House floor with a do-pass recommendation. Discussion at committee focused on the bill's retroactivity, the council's discretion to accept or reject petitions, and potential fiscal exposure.
Votes at a glance
- Motion: Send House Bill 148 to the floor with a do-pass recommendation. Mover: Representative Deygard (motion stated on the record). Outcome: approved by voice vote; no roll-call count recorded in the transcript.
