Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Candidate Eligibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House advances bill to require 120 days’ habitation in district before candidacy, sends it to general orders
Summary
Lawmakers debated HB 6-73, a proposal to require candidates to have 120 days of habitation in their district in the year before filing; supporters said it clarifies intent, opponents flagged retroactivity, military and deployment impacts, and enforcement questions; the House sent the bill to general orders to allow amendments.
The sponsor (member from District 34) opened discussion on House Bill 6-73, saying the bill would require candidates for the Idaho Legislature to have lived in their district for at least 120 days during the year preceding the filing period. She described the measure as a way to clarify ‘‘intent’’ and to ensure candidates are part of the communities they seek to represent.
Members asked detailed questions about timing and consequences. One lawmaker asked whether the requirement meant 120 consecutive days prior to the filing deadline or 120 days at any point in the preceding year; the sponsor clarified it meant 120 days during the preceding year and not necessarily consecutive days. Multiple members raised concerns the bill could be retroactive if it became effective immediately (before the end of the filing period), potentially disqualifying people who have already filed. Several members said they feared the bill could be used to challenge candidacies and urged a later effective date.
Lawmakers asked about special circumstances such as military deployments, traveling nurses, missionaries and people who move within a district; the sponsor said the rule would apply to the campaign cycle in question and that individuals who are not physically present for the 120 days in the current cycle would be affected if the bill were signed into law before the filing deadline. Questions about enforcement produced an explanation that complaints would go to the Secretary of State with investigative avenues including utility records and affidavits.
Other members raised constitutional fairness and equal-protection concerns, saying the change might be applied unevenly or create ex post facto problems. Some supporters urged the chamber to allow the bill to go to general orders so sponsors could address drafting issues and potential exemptions.
The House agreed to place HB 6-73 on general orders so the sponsor and committees can refine the bill; the measure did not receive a final passage vote on the floor during this session.
Next steps are committee amendments and a return to the floor for further consideration if the sponsor pursues changes.
