Final Legislative Update

March 30, 2026

I had no morning committee meeting, and the floor session started today at 11 AM. There were 17 bills on the Second Reading Calendar and no Third Reading Calendar, as we are ahead of schedule. We handled six bills, and all of them passed with supermajorities, but one had some concerns. H967 was a reworking of age H944. Both bills sought to amend the Idaho Code to revise the distribution of monies in the Liquor Account to the State Police. The first one, H944, appropriated $5 million for the Idaho State Police, and it was sent to general orders in the Revenue and Taxation committee last week. This bill, with the same purpose, came to the floor this morning, asking for $4 million to be transferred to the Idaho Law Enforcement Fund. This removed $870,000 from counties and $1.2 million from cities. My counties reached out to me and asked me to vote against it, and so I did. Reluctantly, because the Idaho State Police does need an increase, but I believe this was an inappropriate way to do it, taking money from the counties and cities. The bill passed 50-18-2. This will result in an average $12,000 pay raise to state troopers.

On another note, Representative John VanderWoude, District 22, who has a 20+ year career in the state legislature, was allowed to take over the role of Speaker of the House for this session. He did a remarkably good job and was applauded for his long service to Idaho. At about 12:10 PM, the House recessed until 3 PM this afternoon.

The House reconvened for the afternoon session at 3 PM and dealt with 11 bills. Nine bills passed with supermajorities.

• H1435, which was the main appropriation for Health and Human Services, passed 43-25-2. Total budget was $5,000,663,172. I voted in favor.

• H810aaS amends existing law to provide for certain physical presence requirements for state representatives and senators. There was concern that the bill was poorly written and did not provide for certain situations when people may have been burned out or lost their domicile for a short time and had to rent, causing them to not be able to prove they were domiciled the right amount of time. The bill passed 38-28-4. I voted in opposition.

• H964 related to the appropriation to the Department of Fish and Game. It was an enhancement bill with a $14 million increase. I voted no, but the bill passed 36-30-4.

• S1401 is related to the enhancement appropriation to the Department of Health and Welfare. It layered substantial enhancements, including $35.6 million in heavily dedicated vaccine funds and federal sources. I voted against. The bill passed 30-36-4.

• S1429 relates to the enhancement appropriations to the Department of Health and Welfare for the Behavioral Health Services Division. Another $7.5 million enhancement. I voted against the bill, which passed 39-27-4.

My afternoon Local Government Committee was a short tribute to our page for her hard work. The chair of the committee notified us that we may get a bill or two on Wednesday, and so we would be at the call of the chair.

Tuesday, March 31.

I again did not have a morning committee meeting. The floor session began at 10 AM this morning. We had five bills on the Second Reading Calendar. All five were funding bills of various configurations.

• S1432 was an enhancement to Health and Welfare programs collectively known as “Other Programs”. It increased the budget by approximately $865,000. These were programs that could have appropriately been funded out of the maintenance budget, in my view. I voted no. The bill passed 42-24-4.

• S1433 was another Health and Welfare-Medicaid enhancement. It appears that we are nowhere along the road to gaining control of the expenditures in this budget. The enhancement alone was nearly half a billion dollars. Much of it was for software used to administer Medicaid and other health benefits. I voted no. The enhancement passed 35-32-3.

• S1434, another Health and Welfare enhancement, was for various costs of implementing Medicaid and system updates to track Medicaid eligibility. The bill passed 46-21-3. I voted no.

• S1437 was a small $63,000 appropriation for the state police relating to a bill we passed earlier, dealing with forensic analyses, including thumbprints. I voted yes. The bill passed 66-0-4.

• And finally, H968 was appropriation and transfer of monies in the state treasury for fiscal years 2026 and 2027. It’s essentially a bill that moves money that was voted upon by JFAC and by the House into the appropriate budget line items. It’s money that is already in the budget, just moved to where it belongs. The House recessed to 2 PM this afternoon.

  
  

My afternoon committee, Business, met upon adjournment of the floor session. We had four bills.

• The first was S1254. This bill effectuates the original intent of the statute, allowing licensed Idaho chiropractors, certified in clinical nutrition, to prescribe and treat patients with the limited prescription drug products they are currently allowed under Idaho law to obtain and independently administer to patients. It seems that the statute was read rigorously because the word “prescribe.” Was not in the original statute, chiropractors were allowed to give the shots, mix and create the shots, but they were not allowed to actually purchase the materials to do so. This rectifies that. For informational purposes, the compounds that they are allowed to give injections of include such things as vitamin A, all B vitamins, vitamin C, calcium, chromium, iodine, magnesium, etc. The bill was sent to the floor with a do-pass recommendation unanimously.

• The second bill, S1353, would legalize twin homes and duplexes on residential lots where single-family homes are already permitted. After much testimony in favor and against, the do-pass recommendation failed on a tie vote 7-7. I voted for.

• The third bill, S1313, would allow pharmacists to seek voluntary, dual licensure as a naturopathic doctor under the regulation of the Idaho Board of Naturopathic Healthcare. This bill was sent to the floor unanimously with a do-pass recommendation.

• The final bill, S1359, ostensibly would protect consumers from financial exploitation and fraudulent activities when using virtual currency kiosks. I have concerns that there are extensive Fourth Amendment violations in this bill. For example, it mandates blockchain analytics, transaction hashing, data retention, and sharing with law enforcement/Adult Protective Services upon “suspicion”. This would normalize very broad financial monitoring without a warrant in many cases. There’s explicit information sharing and frequent monitoring language that gives the state, in my opinion, too easy access to private financial activity. The bill was sent to the floor with a do-pass recommendation. I voted against.

  
  

The floor session reconvened around 2:10 PM. We heard three bills that we have heard before, but that were sent to the Senate and then sent back to us with Senate amendments.

• H730aaS (AA means as amended, and the capital S indicates that it was amended in the Senate), adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) integrity measures and verification. I voted in favor, and the bill passed 57-4-9.

• H758aaS amended existing law to provide for supervision requirements while a child is sleeping and established an exception regarding children to be counted in attendance at a daycare. Technology will now be allowed to keep tabs on children (cameras, etc.), and daycare operators do not have to count their own children when providing attendance numbers. The measure passed 59-3-8, and I voted in favor.

• The final bill of the day, H928aaS, adds to existing law to establish the Merit-Based Health Care Act. It would require that Medicaid-funded employment and contracting decisions be based solely on merit, professional qualifications, and clinical competency. It prohibits discriminatory hiring and specified DEI practices—such as race- or sex-based preferences, mandatory bias training, and ideological pledges—while preserving exemptions for federal civil rights compliance, clinical data collection, and accredited medical training. The bill passed 55-8-7 and I voted in favor. The floor session adjourned around 2:50 PM to reconvene on Wednesday morning, April 1, at 10 AM.

  
  

Wednesday, April 1.

I had no morning committee today, and the House convened at 10 AM. We had five bills on the Second Reading Calendar, because the bills are coming to the floor one day after being read by the clerk; there is no Third Reading Calendar.

• H822aaS, a bill that adds to the existing law to establish the Pediatric Secretive Transitions Parental Rights Act, passed 60-9-1. I voted in favor.

• S1430 revises a provision regarding preemption of firearms regulation, to provide a penalty, and to provide a cause of action. Effectively, it provides for a civil penalty and permanent injunction for any Idaho county, city, agency, board, or other political subdivision of the state that willfully and knowingly violates state statutes regarding firearms, ammunition, or components. I voted in favor; it passed 60-8-2.

• S1359aa would add to the existing law to establish the Virtual Currency Kiosk Fraud Prevention Act. There were major concerns with this bill regarding the mandates that the state required. Including blockchain analytics, transaction hashing, data retention, and sharing with law enforcement/Adult Protective Services upon “suspicion”. Explicit information sharing and frequent monitoring language give the state incredibly easy access to private financial activity. The entire bill essentially normalizes broader financial monitoring without individualized warrants in most cases. It was acknowledged that the kiosk fraud is about 4% of the fraud that occurs in Idaho. And yet this bill would create a gigantic regulatory apparatus with sweeping powers. It was billed as protection for especially “seniors” who may not be able to navigate these kiosks appropriately. Information and warnings would’ve been sufficient in my mind. I voted against. The bill passed 39-30-1. Two other bills on the Second Reading Calendar were set aside, and we received notice that we would be immediately voting upon six more. This was something of a “suspension calendar” but with much less warning.

• S1410 (from the SOP) “clarifies and improves the process used to adjust Medicaid encounter rates for Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and Rural Health Clinics (RHCs) when there is a change in the scope of services they provide. The bill establishes a clear statutory process for submitting, reviewing, and approving rate adjustments tied to changes in services. By creating defined timelines, documentation requirements, and review procedures, the legislation improves transparency and consistency in how these adjustments are handled. These improvements will provide health centers with greater visibility and predictability when planning budgets”. I voted in favor; it passed 67-0-3.

• S1439 amends 33-917 of Idaho Code, pushing the model school facility plan deadline from 2026 to 2027. This ensures proper time to meet the objectives of said plan, which include outlining plans for school facility construction, potential variability of school properties, and consulting experts on proper use of funds from the modernization facilities fund. It passed 68-0-2, and I voted in favor.

• SCR127 from the SOP “addresses the devastating impact that legalizing marijuana has had on other states that have legalized medical marijuana. Additionally, this legislation identifies the significant problems with the Idaho Medical Cannabis Act Ballot Initiative as it is currently written. It is a nonbinding concurrent resolution that simply encourages voters to vote no on the ballot initiative. It passed the House 58-9-3. I voted in favor. At this point, the House recessed until 2:30 PM.

  
  

Upon reconvening at 2:30 PM, we dealt with H971, which was a general appropriation to the office of the Attorney General. It would enable him to continue his work, especially in the area of Internet crimes against children. It passed, 48-17-5. I voted in favor. S1446, another enhancement to Health and Welfare, and the Judicial Branch, passed 55-13-2. I voted against. The House adjourned until 8:30 AM, April 2.

Thursday, April 2nd

No morning committee again. The house reconvened at 8:30 AM.

• S1244 would amend the existing law to clarify the existing right of persons licensed to practice chiropractic to prescribe certain prescription drug products. Apparently, certified chiropractors can already administer certain types of vitamins and minerals by shot, but they are not allowed to purchase the products to create the shots. They can already create the shots with the existing product, but adding the word “prescribed” allows them to purchase the product. The bill passed 43-22-5. I voted in favor.

• S1313 would amend the existing lot to provide for the voluntary licensure of pharmacists as natural pathic doctors, a dual license. I voted yes, the bill passed 46-10-14.

• We then went to the second reading calendar and took up House Bill H516. This was a bill that was “radiator”, that is, the entire content of the original bill was removed with the sponsor’s permission, and an entirely new bill was added in. The new bill was essentially the same language that was in H0745 regarding taxpayer funds being used to facilitate union activities.

In simple terms, this bill makes it illegal for public school districts, including charter schools, to use any taxpayer money, school facilities, staff time, payroll systems, or other public resources to help teachers’ unions carry out their union business. It doesn’t ban unions or collective bargaining outright. Teachers can still form unions, negotiate contracts, file grievances, and do union work—but they (or the union) have to pay for it themselves and do it on their own time or with their own resources. The goal is to stop schools from indirectly subsidizing or facilitating union activities with public funds.

Representative McCann moved to send the bill to the House Education Committee. That motion failed 20-45-5. I voted against it. It was essentially a motion to kill the bill. After about 20 minutes of debate, it passed 45-23-2. I voted in favor. We then proceeded to handle 14 more bills on the second reading calendar.

Nine of the bills passed with supermajorities.

• S1438, related to the appropriation for the Public Schools Educational Support Programs Division of the Idaho Digital Learning Academy. It passed 38-28-4. I voted in favor.

• H975 dealt with the appropriation and transfer of monies in the state treasury for the fiscal year 2027. It passed 43-23-4. I voted against.

• H978 was another appropriation to the Department of Health and Welfare for 2027. It passed 34-29-7. I voted against.

• S1454 was an appropriation enhancement to the Department of Health and Welfare; it passed 42-25-3. I voted against.

• S1247aaH added to the existing law to establish provisions regarding law enforcement entering into a memorandum of agreement. This was another attempt to establish 287 (g) provisions for law enforcement. It passed the House, 37-29-4. I voted in favor. It ended up not being agreed to in the Senate, so it died as well, but there is so much misinformation about this program. I’m going to try to give you some understanding of what underpins my yes votes on these immigration tools that the state attempted to implement.

  
  

Signing a 287(g) MOA with ICE gives your sheriff’s office some extra federal tools without turning your deputies into full-time immigration agents. Think of it as adding a useful upgrade to your existing law enforcement toolkit.

Key advantages and Facts:

• Safer communities: Your jail staff can quickly identify and help remove serious criminal offenders (like gang members, violent felons, drug dealers, or sex offenders) who are here illegally. Instead of releasing them back onto the streets after their local sentence, they can be handed straight to ICE for deportation. This keeps repeat threats out of your county.

• Better training and resources (properly federally funded): ICE pays for special immigration training for selected deputies. They also get access to federal databases and systems that your officers normally can’t use. This helps them know exactly who they’re dealing with.

• Faster handoffs: Deputies can issue detainers or serve certain ICE warrants right in the jail. This makes the process smoother and reduces the chance of dangerous people slipping through the cracks.

• Potential extra funding or reimbursements: Some models (especially Task Force) can include federal money for equipment, vehicles, overtime, or even partial salary support. Your county may also qualify for separate federal payments for housing criminal immigrants.

• More local control and partnership: Your sheriff stays in charge of his office. It’s a voluntary partnership that lets you decide how much to participate (jail-only, warrant service, or broader). Many sheriffs say it’s a “force multiplier”, you get federal backup using your own people on the ground. It equips our local law enforcement to do a better job protecting the public from criminal illegal immigrants while keeping day-to-day operations local. Many sheriffs who signed see it as common-sense cooperation that helps their county without big downsides.

• As of April 6, 2026, ICE has signed 1,630 Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) under the 287(g) program nationwide.

These agreements cover law enforcement agencies in 39 states and 2 U.S. Territories. Jail Enforcement Model (JEM): 170 agencies (30 states + 1 territory)

Warrant Service Officer (WSO): 484 agencies (35 states)

Task Force Model (TFM): 976 agencies (32 states + 2 territories)

It is estimated that 13,800 to 15,800 officers have been deputized under the Task Force Model alone.

Broader estimates (including all models) suggest well over 20,000 local officers have received 287(g) training and authority across the country, with numbers continuing to grow rapidly. The program has expanded dramatically since early 2025 (from roughly 135 MOAs to over 1,600), making it one of the largest local- federal law enforcement partnerships in U.S. history.

• Finally, regarding constitutionality, this is, in my memory, one of the very few programs the federal government has implemented in the last generation that actually has constitutional authority. Even under what I consider a strict constructionist/originalist lens that emphasizes enumerated powers, federalism, the Tenth Amendment, and avoidance of commandeering. It passes the test:

Immigration is a core federal power. The Constitution grants Congress broad authority over naturalization (Art. I, Sec 8), and the federal government has plenary power over foreign affairs and border control. Delegating limited enforcement functions to willing local officers fits within that authority.

• It is entirely voluntary, and there is no commandeering. The Supreme Court’s anti-commandeering doctrine (Printz v. United States, 1997) prohibits the federal government from forcing state/local officials to enforce federal law. 287(g) requires a voluntary Memorandum of Agreement. Either side can walk away. This respects federalism and state sovereignty.

• Further, Congress explicitly authorized it. Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (1996) is a clear statutory text allowing the Attorney General (now DHS/ICE) to enter into agreements with states and localities. Strict constructionists respect explicit congressional delegations more than implied or executive overreach. Cross-deputization is historically normal. Federal and state/local officers have long worked together via task forces (DEA, FBI, etc.). Local officers acting under federal authority for specific functions do not improperly blur lines when done by agreement.

  
  

However, officers must still follow the U.S. Constitution (4th Amendment, etc.) when exercising the new authority. Implementation abuses (e.g., racial profiling) can violate individual rights and lead to lawsuits, but that doesn’t make the program itself unconstitutional. States continue to retain the power to restrict or prohibit their own agencies from participating (some have done so). The federal government cannot use funding threats or other pressure to make it effectively mandatory. This program is a lawful, voluntary partnership authorized by Congress in an area of clear federal responsibility. It does not commandeer states, expand federal power beyond the text, or violate the Tenth Amendment. Many originalist-leaning scholars and officials view it as a proper “force multiplier” that respects dual sovereignty.

I felt it necessary to provide this lengthy explanation because there is so much misinformation regarding this program.

Today, being a day of starts and stops, continued with the stops. All the bills that we voted on that evening passed by supermajorities.

The House finally adjourned sine die at 6:28 PM.

I hope this weekly Session Report was useful to you.

Representative Cornel Rasor | District 1B