Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Hate Speech Antisemitism topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Antisemitism resolution returned to sponsor after committee debate on scope

2989433 · March 5, 2025
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

RS 32,552, a proposed resolution addressing antisemitism and including a definition in Idaho Code, was returned to the sponsor after committee members raised concerns about singling out groups and proposed expanding the language to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Representative Brent Crane presented RS 32,552, which would add a definition of antisemitism to Idaho Code and say antisemitism is not tolerated in Idaho. Crane said he had consulted with members of the Jewish community and that the intent was to make clear that Jewish residents are welcome in the state.

The proposal drew immediate questions from committee members about singling out a particular group and potential overlap with existing legal protections. Representative Barbieri said, "The concept that we're singling out anyone to be welcomed in Idaho when everyone is welcomed in Idaho is a little bit problematic." Representative Hosteller and others raised First Amendment and enforcement concerns and noted existing prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of religion, race and national origin.

Representative Achilles moved a substitute to add language on the bill’s definition line to explicitly include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." Committee members debated that approach and the broader policy implications.

A subsequent amended substitute motion to return RS 32,552 to the sponsor was moved in committee; the motion carried by voice vote and the resolution was sent back to the sponsor for further work. Committee members said the measure required more development before a substantive hearing, citing concerns about scope, overlap with existing law, and potential unintended consequences.

No formal hearing with additional outside testimony occurred during this meeting; the committee closed consideration by returning the resolution to the sponsor.