Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Cybersecurity topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee introduces RS 31885 to require multi‑factor authentication for state systems

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The House State Affairs Committee on Jan. 7 introduced RS 31885, a proposal from Rep. Britt Raybould to clarify cybersecurity authority for the state and require multi‑factor authentication for access to state information. Lawmakers voted to introduce the request, and sponsors said existing infrastructure limits fiscal impact.

The House State Affairs Committee on Tuesday introduced RS 31885, a request from Representative Britt Raybould that would clarify which offices oversee cybersecurity and require multi‑factor authentication for access to state information.

Representative Britt Raybould, R‑District 34, told the panel the measure “accomplishes two objectives: it clarifies who has the authority and the oversight as it relates to cyber security and information security for the State of Idaho and also establishes that for the purposes of accessing State information we adopt multi factor authentication.”

Raybould said the measure is intended to reduce phishing and unauthorized access to state systems. Representative Barbieri asked whether the proposal carried a fiscal cost; Raybould replied that the state already has the technology and infrastructure in place and that the measure would authorize the Idaho Department of Information Technology Services (ITS) to ensure agencies implement the existing tools. “The process is already in place for State employees to gain access to LUMA, so essentially we already have the technology and the infrastructure in place to do it,” Raybould said.

Representative Mickelson moved to introduce RS 31885. The committee approved the motion by voice vote.

No detailed fiscal note or committee amendment was presented during the hearing. The measure was introduced and will follow the legislature’s standard processing for introduced requests.

Minutes for the committee’s prior meeting (Tuesday, Jan. 7) were also approved earlier in the session by a voice vote.

The committee did not adopt substantive amendments during the introduction; further committee action or a bill draft would show any specific statutory changes and potential fiscal impacts.