Senate committee advances constitutional amendment to change initiative signature distribution after hours of public testimony

The Senate State Affairs Committee voted 5–3 to send Senate Joint Resolution 101 to the Senate floor with a recommendation that it receive a due-pass vote. Senator Doug O'Conowitz, sponsor of SJR 101 and a senator from Legislative District 3, told the committee that if approved by the legislature and the voters the amendment would "change signature gathering requirements for initiatives and referenda" by requiring the same 6 percent threshold in each of Idaho's 35 legislative districts rather than the current statewide distribution method.

The proposal’s backers said the measure preserves the total number of signatures required while preventing wealthy out‑of‑state donors from targeting a handful of areas to put measures on the ballot. Senator O'Conowitz told the committee that the change "will make that more difficult" for outside special interests and that the resolution simply puts the question before voters so "the people can decide." Senator Dan Hartog, who moved the committee motion to send SJR 101 to the floor, said the change is a constitutional amendment and "could be decided by the people of Idaho" if it completes the legislative process.

Opponents — including dozens of residents and statewide organizations who testified during a lengthy public-comment period — described the amendment as effectively ending the initiative process. Dr. Jean Henscheid, co‑president of the League of Women Voters of Idaho, said the league opposes the measure and argued "any attempt to curtail self‑government is seen by League members as an infringement on the fundamental rights of citizens." Tina Hilding, a volunteer petition worker from Moscow, told the committee, "I believe SJR 101 would silence Idaho voters rather than giving them a voice." Multiple speakers who said they had experience collecting signatures emphasized the time and volunteer effort required under current rules and predicted the proposed distribution requirement would force campaigns to rely on paid signature gatherers and larger donors.

Committee debate referenced a prior Idaho Supreme Court ruling. Senator Rucke, in questioning the sponsor, summarized the court's 55‑page decision and argued that the court found a similar requirement "gives every legislative district in the state veto power, and turns a perceived fear of tyranny of the majority into an actual tyranny of the minority." Senator O'Conowitz responded that the court limited whether the legislature could enact the change by statute and that a constitutional amendment submitted to voters is a different route.

Public testimony was extensive and broadly opposed. Witnesses who identified themselves as volunteers on past initiatives described collecting signatures in bad weather and said measures such as Medicaid expansion passed when taken to the ballot. The Idaho Conservation League, League of Women Voters of Idaho, Conservation Voters for Idaho and other organizations asked the committee to hold the measure. Supporters included precinct and county Republican officials who said the current practice concentrates signature gathering in urban areas and that a district distribution requirement would ensure broader geographic engagement.

The committee vote that advanced the resolution was conducted by roll call; the chair announced the motion carried 5–3. The committee did not adopt changes to the text at the hearing. If SJR 101 receives the required two‑thirds approval in both legislative chambers, it would be placed on the ballot for voter approval in November. The sponsor repeatedly told the panel that the legislature was "simply voting to put this in front of the people."