Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves change to disturbing‑the‑peace law to cover malicious disruptions at religious services amid constitutional concerns
Summary
Lawmakers approved House Bill 6‑15 to clarify Idaho’s disturbing‑the‑peace provisions to cover malicious, willful disruptions of religious worship; opponents warned the language could be vague and criminalize speech, while supporters said unconstitutional language was removed; the bill passed 64‑5‑1.
The House voted to pass House Bill 6‑15 after a floor debate that split along concerns about constitutional vagueness and supporters’ assertions the bill was narrowed to target malicious, loud disruptions of religious services.
The bill sponsor told members the measure clarifies disturbing‑the‑peace law to make clear persons who maliciously and willfully disturb an assemblage gathered for religious worship can be charged with a misdemeanor. The sponsor cited examples of protest disturbances at funerals and worship services and said the change allows law enforcement to cite people who maliciously disrupt services; he emphasized that the bill targets disruptive volume and malicious intent rather than protected speech.
A Representative opposing the bill said the draft still raised “real problems under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,” warning that vague language could criminalize quarrelling, disagreement, or ordinary public debate. She argued criminal statutes require precise notice of proscribed conduct and said broad terms such as “religious gatherings” were undefined and could sweep into public rallies where religious language is sometimes invoked.
The sponsor replied that previously unconstitutional language had been removed and the bill was redrafted with input from an experienced prosecutor to avoid criminalizing speech. After debate closed, the House recorded 64 ayes, 5 nays and 1 absent/excused and passed the bill; the bill will be transmitted to the Senate.
The transcript shows both the concern about overbreadth and the sponsor’s assurance that the measure targets malicious disturbance by volume and intent rather than expression; members asked clarifying questions on scope during floor debate.
