Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the HB240 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Idaho committee advances bill to bar campus 'speech zones' despite drafting concerns
Summary
House Bill 240, which would prohibit outdoor campus 'free‑speech zones' and limit security fees based on content, was presented by Representative Ehart and Alliance Defending Freedom counsel Zach Pruitt and sent to the Senate floor with a due‑pass recommendation; at least one senator raised concerns about a private cause of action and compensatory damages.
The Senate State Affairs Committee voted March 17 to send House Bill 240 to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation after hearing sponsor and outside testimony.
Representative Ehart introduced the bill as a measure to protect outdoor expressive activity on public college and university campuses and said the language relies on Supreme Court precedent and models used in more than 20 states. "There's no room for that view," she said in a discussion of campus rules that limit speech, and urged the committee to treat campuses as public fora for constitutionally protected expression.
Zach Pruitt, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, told the committee the bill has three primary sections: a definitions section, a prohibition on creating outdoor zones that limit free speech, and rules on security fees that bar charging student groups fees based on the content of speech. "This part just ensures that a student group will not be charged security fees based upon the content of their speech," Pruitt said, and he clarified the bill excludes commercial speech.
Edward Clark of the Idaho Family Policy Center testified in support and said campus practices have, in his view, limited conservative and religious viewpoints; he urged the committee to send the bill forward.
During debate, Senator Rudke said he had concerns about the bill's remedy section, which creates a private cause of action with compensatory damages of up to $25,000. "I have concerns about private cause of action and the fact that they encourage people to seek trouble," Rudke said and criticized legislative findings that cite court cases as poor statutory drafting. Senator Anthony moved to send the bill to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation; the motion carried by voice vote with Senator Ruckley recorded as voting no.
The committee record shows supportive testimony from the bill sponsor and allied legal advocates and a single voiced dissent focused on statutory drafting and the private remedy. The bill will next be considered by the full Senate.
