Session Report
Week 9 March 9-13
Monday, March 9, 2026
I had no morning committee today, so I spent the morning preparing for my presentation of Senate Bill S 1296, which I’m cosponsoring with Senate Pro Tim Kelly Anthon and Sen. Ben Toews.
The morning floor session, which started at 10:30 AM, handled nine bills. The first bill was S1322 relating to the appropriation and transfer of monies in the state treasury for fiscal years 2026 and 2027. There were actually 27 bills on the third reading calendar, and S1322 was number 19, but we needed to deal with it first, as it transferred money into the general fund to set the stage for us being able to create the budget for the year. The majority leader moved to bring it to the top of the third reading calendar, the motion was approved unanimously.
It addressed several cash transfers into the General Fund for FY 2026 and 2027. The source of cash transfers included: (1.) the Strategic Initiatives Program Fund; (2.) the Idaho Opportunity Scholarship Fund; (3.) the Permanent Building Fund; (4.) the Water Pollution Control Fund; and (5.) the In-Demand Careers Fund. The total impact of this legislation is to increase available General Fund revenues by $106,745,000 in FY 2026 and $10,000,000 in FY 2027. It passed 59-9-2. I voted in favor. Of the remaining bills we dealt with in the morning session, two were controversial. The first was H638, which added to the existing law to provide for a presidential primary election in March. There was no debate, but the vote was 45-23-2. I voted in favor.
The second bill that did not pass by a super majority was H766, which would add Idaho Fire and Ambulance Service Districts to the list of other entities empowered to adopt a development impact fee ordinance (cities, counties, single county-wide highway districts). My concerns were that it expands government extraction from developer/homebuyers, creates more barriers to entry and housing affordability, and distorts markets. It would inflate housing costs, among other things. I voted no, but the bill passed 39-27-4.
The House recessed the morning session, and we were able to enjoy lunch with members of the Idaho Federation of Republican Women, who provided lunch on the fourth-floor rotunda. I had to miss my afternoon committee, Business, which had five bills to deal with. I will remark on those as they come up on the floor of the House.
My presentation was S1296, which closes a gap in Idaho’s trespass statute in Title 18. It recognizes a specific criminal trespass offense for entering or remaining on the premises of a church or house of worship while the individual’s presence is clearly not permitted. To be convicted, an individual must also be proven to possess the specific intent to intimidate, harass, or disrupt a religious service or assemblage. From my closing: “In summary, S1296 is a commonsense update: It defines church trespass to prevent intentional disruptions and applies measured penalties to protect real victims—worshipers exercising their rights. By passing this, we safeguard religious liberty amid rising threats.”
The bill was sent to the floor unanimously with a do-pass recommendation.
Again, because I was giving a presentation of my bill in Judiciary and Rules, I was unable to attend my business committee meeting.
The afternoon session on the floor of the House dealt with five bills on the third reading calendar, and then we handled six bills on the second reading calendar by suspending the rules so that we could do that. There are only two bills that didn’t pass by a supermajority. H760 on the third reading calendar, amended existing law to revise provisions regarding certain property tax exemptions for low-income housing. The major concerns I had with this bill were that it was a form of tax favoritism and created unequal treatment by granting selective property tax exemptions to certain developments (nonprofit-affiliated affordable projects, while others paid the full freight. I believe it violated equal protection under property rights in uniform taxation principles, which is in the Idaho Constitution in Article 7. The bill passed 39-28-3. I voted against. The other bill that didn’t pass by a super majority was on the second reading calendar; in fact, it didn’t pass at all. It was a bill that added to existing law that would require public schools to offer daily recess to students in kindergarten through grade 5 and to encourage public schools to offer unstructured activity breaks for students in grades six through eight.
The major concerns expressed were actually concerns that I had as well. I believe it was a bit of overreach to dictate to the school districts regarding recess. And it appeared to me that it removed a tool that teachers have to encourage good behavior. I voted yes, but fully understood those who voted no. The bill failed 30-35-5.
Tuesday, March 10.
I did not have a morning committee meeting today, and the morning floor session started at 10:30 AM.
The majority leader indicated at the beginning of the session that we would be attending two House bills today, except for one Senate bill, S1314, that had to do with repealing existing law to revise provisions regarding the board of health and welfare, substate administrative regions, and regional behavioral. Health boards. These repeals resulted in reductions in costs and placed the responsibility that the behavioral health boards had under the regional health boards. This bill passed, 61-9-0. I voted in favor of the remaining bills on the Third Reading Calendar; only one was controversial. HJM17: the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse the decision in Obergefell vs Hodges, and restore the natural definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman. There was minimal debate, and the memorial passed 44-66-0. I voted in favor.
We then moved to the Second Reading Calendar and dealt with six bills on the calendar. Only two generated a bit of controversy. The first was H717aa, which amended existing law to provide for registration fees. It imposes a $75 fine on any new registrants who do not register within 30 days of moving to the state. There was no debate and at first, the vote display screen showed a tie. Just as the speaker was about to lock the screen, someone changed their vote, and the bill ended up passing 36-34-0. I felt that the penalty was unwelcoming and unnecessary, with the existing law handling the problem just fine. I voted against it.
The second bill that received a disparate vote was not far from a supermajority. H750aa established provisions regarding programmable money. It passed 53-15-2. I voted in favor. The House recessed at this point, with a call to return this afternoon at 3:30 PM.
I had no afternoon committees. The afternoon floor session reconvened at about 3:40 PM. We dealt with three bills on the Second Reading Calendar. H847, which passed 59-7-4, H848 and which passed 60-6-4. The first was a the maintenance appropriation for the judicial branch for 2027, and the second was the maintenance appropriation for the legislative branch for 2027. The third bill was H849, which revises provisions regarding certain placement and movement on the career ladder in education. This bill essentially resets the career ladder with higher initial placement for employees with higher industry experience. Short-term budget impact would probably increase statewide salary and benefit apportionment costs modestly. Long-term goal, ongoing allocations rise with the cumulative effect over the years, potentially pressuring the budget, unless it is offset by performance freezes or enrollment changes, to expand and grow. The bill passed 43-25-2. I voted against it.
Wednesday, March 11.
At the morning Revenue and Taxation Committee meeting, we dealt with three bills that were sent to the floor with a do-pass recommendation. Current law allows individuals to have 2 yard sales per year before they have to start collecting sales tax, irrespective of the total dollars in sales. H792 still allows the 2 yard sales but also allows an unlimited number of yard sales provided that the total sales per year are less than the $5000 limit established under the small sellers law.
H811 establishes a county’s ability to form a Community Infrastructure District (CID). The legislation clarifies the circumstances under which a county may form one, including one that is formed outside a city’s comprehensive plan. Finally, H722 modified the reporting and payment schedules of rate-regulated utilities to match historical periods.
The third reading calendar had 14 bills and three concurrent resolutions. We dealt with one bill, H822, which added to the existing law to establish the Pediatric Secretive Transitions Parental Rights Act. This requires school district employees to report to parents within 72 hours of hearing that one of their children wishes to socially or medically transition their birth sex. The bill passed 59-9-2. I voted in favor. This bill generated so much debate that it was the only one we accomplished.
I had an afternoon committee, Business, but I was unable to attend because I was presenting H752, the Restroom, Changing Rooms, Protection Act. This bill would make it a misdemeanor for any person to knowingly and willfully enter a restroom, changing room, locker room, or shower room in a government-owned building or a place of public accommodation designated for the opposite biological sex. A second or subsequent conviction within five years would be a felony punishable by up to five years in a state prison. After about three hours of testimony for and against, it was sent to the floor with no recommendation on a 10-5 vote. I will present it on the floor when it comes up.
Thursday, March 12.
My morning committee today was, as always, House Revenue and Taxation. We received three RS’s and introduced all three. The first would expand Idaho’s existing tobacco permitting framework to include vapor products and alternative nicotine products. It was a new chapter that would provide the framework for regulating and taxing nicotine analogues and other alternative nicotine products.
The second RS would establish a state property tax to fund Idaho’s public safety infrastructure, provide primary property tax relief, and support local infrastructure. This would target non-primary residential properties such as short-term rentals, vacation homes, and investment properties, to fund public safety, provide property tax relief to Homestead owners, and support infrastructure. Several committee members found it very objectionable, but it was still introduced so the sponsor could have an opportunity to present it in bill form and have a hearing.
The final RS would clarify who qualifies for the homestead exemption. Homeowners cannot claim the homestead exemption if they have a similar exemption or another state. This legislation would require their Idaho license, or ID to show the same addresses the property they’re claiming. Or they can use an individual Idaho tax return for verification if it shows the same address. To maintain the exemption, they must also live in Idaho for six months a year unless they’re serving in the military or on a religious mission. If a homeowner runs for office, this legislation would clarify that their homestead address would qualify as their candidate residence address.
The third reading calendar for today’s floor session, which started at 10:30 AM, had 24 bills and three Senate Concurrent Resolutions on it. We dealt with 22 bills, held to for the next day, and the three Senate Concurrent resolutions. Only one didn’t pass with a super majority, that was H790, which amended existing law to provide for certified interior designers to be able to sign and seal certain technical submissions and to make some submissions to state or local governmental entities. Currently, certified interior designers work on the plans for homes and deal with non-seismic, non-load-bearing interior walls. Any designs they create have to be run through an architect and receive a stamp from the architect. It appeared to me that it created a new bureaucracy that had the potential to grow and was completely unnecessary. All the interior designers would need to do is get a simple permit for what they did or get the building code changed to allow them. The bill passed 37-32-1. I voted against. The rest of the bills on the calendar passed with votes of 60 to 68 in favor versus 0 to 8 against. The house recessed at the bid afternoon to reconvene at 3:30 today.
The afternoon session had bills from the Second Reading Calendar. We dealt with five. All passed with supermajorities, but two had some debate.
H823 amended existing law to revise provisions regarding County fair boards. The debate centered around the state forcing every county to operate in a certain way. There was a desire to see the local County fair boards operated and controlled by the county’s commissioners and not the state. The bill passed 51-14-5, I voted against it.
S1361 was a maintenance appropriation for Public Safety for fiscal year 2027. Some debate was concerned about the funding for ISP. The JFAC co-chairman explained that the vacant positions were vacant simply because they had been filled yet. There was funding for those positions. One legislator assumed that because they weren’t filled, there was no funding. The bill passed 56-10-4. I voted in favor.
Friday, March 13.
My Friday morning committee, Revenue and Taxation, had one bill, H843, and one RS, RS33636. The bill amends the section of Idaho Code related to the homeowner’s property tax exemption. Under current law, when a property becomes eligible or ineligible for the homestead exemption during the year, the exemption amount may be prorated based on the number of days the property qualified for the exemption. Inconsistent application throughout the counties necessitated an updating of the statute. This bill maintains the existing requirement that applications must be submitted by the last business day of the year to receive the exemption for the current tax year, but it further provides that the full exemption will apply as of January 1 of the tax year in which a complete application is submitted and approved and eliminates the requirement that the exemption be prorated and it states such in the text so that there will be no confusion. It was sent to the floor with a do-pass recommendation on a unanimous vote. The RS provides that a seller of property who mistakenly collects a sales tax instead of an applicable use tax is entitled to a credit for the amount of sales tax paid and is required to refund the customer the sales tax paid (provided the customer requests said refund).
When a customer buys something from a seller, they buy in one of two versions. Is either a purchase of personal property, in which case a sales tax is applied, or if the property is purchased with a contract to install it, such as purchasing a heat pump and having it installed in your home, then the use tax is applied. Although sales tax and use tax are the same percentage, they are often applied to different totals on an invoice. To further explain the bill, once the merchant/seller refunds the improperly charged tax, that merchant/seller is then, according to this legislation, entitled to a credit for the amount they refunded to the customer. The RS was introduced on a unanimous vote.
The floor session today followed a procedure that isn’t often used during the early part of the session, but gains use towards the end of the session when bills come fast and furious.
There were four bills on the Third Reading Calendar. The Second Reading Calendar had 30 bills on it, including a number of appropriations bills. So, the rules were suspended, and we left all of the bills on the Third Reading Calendar to be dealt with on Monday, March 16, and we worked on bills on the Second Reading Calendar. One House joint Memorial was returned to the relevant committee, and two bills were sent to general orders.
H866 was the constitutional officers’ maintenance appropriation for 2027; it passed 61-8-1, and I voted for it. H867 was the general government maintenance appropriation for 2027, and it passed 51-18-1. I voted for it. H868 was an enhancement bill for the Public Employee Retirement System and was a small decrease of $969,300. But it did add over 2 ½ million dollars in budget enhancements, which grows PERSI’s operational footprint. It passed 36-33-1. I voted against. H869 was an enhancement to the Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired, and without any offsets, had enhancements that totaled over $120,000. As the maintenance budget for this commission covered all of their necessary needs, it also had nothing to do with the school for the blind and visually impaired, so I voted against. But it passed 55-14-1. H870 was an enhancement budget for the Office of Information Technology Services. Some of the increase was a simple transfer of FTPs from health and welfare to ITS, and most of the rest was also hardware and software package purchases for cybersecurity. It seems to me that this could have been dealt with in the maintenance budget with offsets there in a year with austere budget situations. I voted against it, but it passed 48-21-1. The final budget package we voted on today was H871, which was enhancements for the State Tax Commission. A very important commission, nevertheless, the maintenance budget could have incorporated the needed improvements and necessary increases with offsetting funding reductions. So, I voted against it. It passed 40-22-1-1. On a side note, the reason for the four different vote tallies was that the Speaker’s wife works for the State Tax Commission, and he asked unanimous consent to be allowed to abstain from voting. Unanimous consent was given, and so the vote tally is thus 40 in favor, 22 against, 1 excused, and 1 absent and excused.
The final bill of the day, which passed with a super majority, was still relatively important, and so I thought I would mention it was H835, which amends existing law to revise provisions regarding expenditures made pursuant to certain funds that are not cognizable.
First, to define some terms. A cognizable fund is one that was known about by the entity responsible for its expenditure. A non-cognizable fund is incoming funds that the entity responsible for receiving and/or spending them was unaware of. Following is a portion of the Statement of Purpose of the bill:
This bill proposes to cap the amount available for approval of non-cognizable adjustments, or federal funds provided to state agencies that were not known during the regular session for appropriations. The creation of this law is to provide a mechanism to the executive branch to spend non-state funds without calling for a special session of the Legislature, under certain circumstances. The Legislature has the authority to appropriate funds once back in session. With the amendment to Article III, Section 8, of the Idaho Constitution, the Legislature can call itself back into session to address additional federal funds with appropriations that were not cognizable during the regular session, among other reasons. This law ensures the authority to pass appropriations rests with the Legislative Department.
Put simply, in the past, if new funds arrived after the budget was approved, state officials (like the administrator of the Division of Financial Management and the Board of Examiners or the Governor) could okay spending them in certain cases, even if they weren’t part of the original plan. This bill tightens that up by limiting how much can be spent this way. It’s tied to a recent change in the Idaho Constitution (Article III, Section 8) that lets the Legislature call itself back into session more easily. So, if big extra funds come in, lawmakers can reconvene to decide on them directly, keeping control over the state’s wallet.
One other note, the reason I detailed every single budget is that I thought people would want to know about the budgets and why I voted the way I did.
My final work of the day was in the House Business Committee. We addressed one rule change, which involved mobile cosmetology/barber vendors and the fees that cosmetology/barbers charge. It was passed unanimously.