Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capitol Mall Camping topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate panel advances Capitol Mall camping restrictions despite constitutional concerns
Summary
The Senate State Affairs Committee voted to send H 603 to the floor with a do-pass recommendation after debate and opposing testimony over a provision that would bar enclosed-structure camping on the Capitol Mall between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m.; one senator recorded a nay vote.
The Senate State Affairs Committee advanced H 603 on March 6, a bill that would define and limit camping on the Capitol Mall by prohibiting enclosed-structure camping between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. and by giving guidance to the Idaho Department of Administration on enforcement.
Senator Adams, sponsor of the bill, said the intent was “to ensure that the Capitol mall remained safe, accessible, and functional by implementing time, place, and manner restrictions on protestors who camped.” He told the committee that the measure would regulate only enclosed structures overnight and allow non-enclosed structures to remain, saying “only enclosed structures were regulated by this legislation for a nine hour period overnight.”
Steve Walker, Deputy Director of the Idaho Department of Administration, told senators the bill would give the Idaho State Police and administrators clearer definitions so they could determine what conduct went beyond protected protest and what qualified as camping that impeded maintenance and accessibility. Russ Wheatley of the Idaho State Police said time, place, and manner rules were permissible and that law enforcement had encountered months-long encampments in 2021 and 2022 that strained operations.
Ritchie Eppink, an attorney testifying in opposition, argued the bill as written would likely be unconstitutional and said federal court precedent has often rejected broad restrictions on so-called “tent-city” protests. He estimated attorney-fee exposure in such litigation could be substantial, saying fees could be “upward of $80,000” in a single case.
Committee members questioned how to balance protest rights and practical needs. Senator Ruchti said he would not support the motion because he worried the bill still left significant room for litigation and taxpayer costs. Senator Anthon said the line between protest and camping was blurred under current law and supported moving the bill forward so the Senate could further consider it.
On a voice vote the committee moved H 603 to the floor with a do-pass recommendation; the record notes Senator Ruchti voted nay.
The bill will next be considered by the full Senate. No amendment language or scheduling for floor debate was recorded in the committee minutes.
