Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ballot Initiative Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee deadlocks on bill to give governor veto over citizen initiatives; motion fails 7-7
Summary
House Bill 85 would have inserted the governor into the initiative process and required certain initiative outcomes to meet supermajority thresholds. The House State Affairs Committee received extensive public testimony, heard arguments for and against, and the motion to send the bill to the floor failed on a 7-7 tie vote.
Representative Skog introduced House Bill 85, which proposes changes to Idaho’s initiative and referendum mechanics, including inserting a governor’s veto step for certain initiatives and a pathway that would require a two‑thirds supermajority on a later ballot to override such a veto.
Skog told the committee HB 85 is intended to make the initiative process consistent with the legislative process by allowing the governor the same presentment role that exists for legislative enactments. He said the proposal would prevent rapid enactment of measures with emergency clauses during times when the legislature is out of session.
The committee heard extended public testimony and statements from both organized and individual stakeholders. Dr. Jean Henscheid, co‑president of the League of Women Voters of Idaho, testified in opposition and argued the initiative is a constitutional right that should not be subject to a governor’s veto. “Any attempt to curtail self‑governance is seen by League members as an infringement on the fundamental rights of citizens,” Henscheid said.
Russ Hendricks, representing the Idaho Farm Bureau, testified in support and argued the measure would protect rural interests from initiatives driven primarily by urban voters. “House Bill 85 simply provides a relief valve and protection for rural citizens who are often left out of the current process,” Hendricks said.
Conservation Voters for Idaho opposed HB 85; Ryan McGoldrick told the committee that the legislature’s lawmaking process and the ballot initiative process are distinct and that making them identical would be inappropriate. Multiple other speakers, including remote testifiers, opposed the bill on constitutional and democratic‑process grounds.
Committee members debated legal and democratic principles. Opponents cited Idaho Supreme Court precedent (noted in committee as Reclaim v. Denny) stressing that the initiative process places citizen‑enacted laws on equal footing with legislative enactments and warned that adding a governor’s veto would diminish direct democracy. Supporters argued the proposed check would prevent out‑of‑state money and misleading campaigns from producing laws with large fiscal impact and argued the legislature retains tools such as session recall and repeal to address problematic measures.
Representative Barbieri moved to send House Bill 85 to the floor with a “do pass” recommendation. The committee called a roll‑call vote. The transcript records the chair and a series of representatives casting yes or no; the chair announced the motion failed on a tie, 7 to 7. The committee adjourned after the tie vote.
Ending: The motion to advance HB 85 failed on a tie vote; the bill did not receive a committee recommendation to the floor at this hearing.
