Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Initiative Threshold topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Affairs Committee votes to print RS31832, a proposal to raise initiative approval threshold to 60%
Summary
The State Affairs Committee voted to print RS31832, a bill to raise the voter approval threshold for citizen initiatives to 60%. Sponsors were asked to address legal and policy implications at a full hearing after members raised concerns about the Idaho Supreme Court and past initiatives that would have failed under a higher threshold.
The State Affairs Committee voted to print RS31832, a proposal to raise the voter-approval threshold for citizen initiatives to 60%, after a short floor exchange during its meeting.
Sponsor Representative Ponca opened discussion by arguing for a higher threshold, saying, "The initiative process is broken. This is one way to level the playing field a little bit by raising it to 60%. There are other states that have 60% or two-thirds in some of their initiative processes." Ponca then moved to introduce RS31832.
Representative Achilles urged caution and asked that the sponsor address several points when the measure returns for a full hearing. Achilles said the committee must consider that the Idaho Supreme Court has "ruled unambiguously that the initiative process is a fundamental right for Idaho voters," and that the bill would impose a 60% requirement on voters while legislators operate on a 50% threshold. Achilles also noted that several successful past initiatives—including sales tax relief, property tax relief and the homeowner exemption—would not have passed if a 60% threshold had applied.
Chair (name not specified) acknowledged those concerns, reminded members the committee can vote down any RS at a later point, and indicated members should expect the sponsor to respond at a full hearing. The committee then approved the motion to print RS31832 by voice vote; individual yeas and nays were not recorded.
The committee did not take final action on the measure; members requested that the sponsor address the legal and historical implications and justify the higher threshold at a subsequent hearing.
