Legislative Session Report: Week Five
- Representative Cornel Rasor
- Feb 13
- 8 min read
Before I start the session report, I received a question on one of my threads asking how I choose which bills to detail in my session report. I attempt to choose the ones that seem to generate the most concern/angst or about which I received the most emails, letters, and phone calls.
Monday, February 9, started with the House Revenue and Taxation Committee hearing two RS’s and tending to Idaho sales and use tax administrative rules. We authorized the chapter rewrite of the sales and use tax and introduced both RS’s, one allowing someone who’s out of the country on a mission to maintain and secure their homestead exemption. The other removed some tax exemptions from data centers and required them to provide their own electricity, among other things.
On the floor, we heard ten bills. None of them were that noteworthy, although one amended existing law providing for the elimination of vehicle registration stickers. In this day of instant digital access to records, law enforcement can verify immediately if a particular license plate/vehicle is registered. This will save the state upwards of $300,000 a year in printing the unnecessary stickers. That bill passed 67- 2-1. I voted for it.
Tuesday, February 10
I had one committee hearing, House Local Government. We heard three RS’s, which were all introduced. One addressed easing the process for public records requests that have been denied, giving requestors an easier method of addressing a denial. In one, if it becomes a bill and it passes, it will allow the recording of public government meetings. Just to be clear on this, this particular RS only addresses government, specifically state, county, and city government. It does not address private organizations.
The floor session addressed five bills. The one that drew the most attention was Representative Price’s House Joint Resolution 7 (HJR 7). If it received a two-thirds vote of 47, it would have put a ballot measure in front of the voters in November that would have provided for the repealing of the Blaine Amendment. This particular act, arguably, was implemented in Idaho to discriminate against Catholics and Mormons in education funding. Supporters say it protects church-state separation and keeps public education secular. Critics call it discriminatory against religious families, arguing it blocks equal access to education funds. U.S. Supreme Court rulings (like in 2022’s Carson v. Makin) have weakened similar amendments by saying states can’t exclude religious schools from neutral aid programs, but Idaho’s hasn’t been fully overturned. I voted for putting it on the ballot for Idaho’s voters to decide, but it failed 41-28-1. It needed 2/3 of the House to send it to the Senate, where it would have needed 2/3 to put it on the ballot.
Wednesday, February 11
I had no morning committee. The morning was taken up with collaborating and negotiating with legislators who took issue with my women’s spaces protection bill, House Bill 606. Their main concerns were the severity of the punishment and a possible exception for an extenuating circumstance. One of the legislators who had concerns came to me the day after the RS introduction and invited me to a “meeting”. I was unsure what he was talking about until I got there, and I saw the folks who were having problems with the bill. They detailed their two concerns, and I asked him to give me suggested language to address them. I received that language this morning, and it was acceptable. I sent my request to LSO to create a new RS with the proposed language in it, and I received it this afternoon.
For the political nerds in the group, this is how that will work. You check with the chairman to make sure he’s amenable to what you want to do first. I will present the bill, not the updated RS, which has the new language, but the original bill to the appropriate committee, and I will have the new RS beside it. Everyone on the committee will have a copy of the bill and the new RS. I will execute my presentation for the bill itself, all the while understanding that we will be replacing it with the new RS. The committee will understand this as well. Upon finishing the presentation, I will ask the committee to “hold the bill in committee” and replace it with the RS and send it to the second reading calendar. Should they do this, it will end up making it to the second reading calendar, and about the same amount of time it would have had it not been replaced.
The floor session saw us vote on three House bills, one Senate bill, and one Senate joint Memorial. House Bill H541 amended existing law and revised a provision regarding enticing a child through the use of the Internet or other communication device providing more safety for children using the Internet. It passed 69-0-1. (Again, that’s 69 in favor, 0 against, and 1 absent and excused)
Senate Joint Memorial 108 also passed, but by a unanimous voice vote since it expended no money. It sent a request to the federal government to deal with an issue that had arisen in which grazers who have grazing contracts with the US government had become fearful of filing Wolf and their livestock depredation claims, anticipating they may lose their grazing contracts in doing so.
Thursday, February 12.
Just an FYI, in these reports, I often report on my committee actions first, even if they were scheduled to be after the morning floor session. Today, for example, the floor session was, as always, at 11 AM except for certain times on Fridays when it start’s at 9 AM or 10 AM. My House Local Government Committee met as it always does at 1:30 PM. In committee, we heard four RS’s, including two that will address immigration issues. The first deals with law enforcement agencies signing up for the 287 (g) collaboration with the federal government on immigration. This particular collaboration is to find thus:
A 287(g) agreement between state/local law enforcement and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (.gov) enables local officers to perform designated federal immigration enforcement functions, such as identifying, detaining, and processing individuals for removal within jails or during routine police work. This partnership enhances immigration enforcement, often focusing on criminal aliens. The second would require the prisons to report on the immigration status and nationality of arrested individuals.
The floor session saw us deal with six bills. The first, for purposes of describing another one of the processes we follow, was sent to General Orders. Here is an explanation of what happens in that situation:
In the Idaho Legislature, sending a bill to “General Orders” (often associated with the 14th Order of Business in the Senate or the Committee of the Whole in the House) means the bill is scheduled for debate and potential amendment by the full chamber. It signifies that a bill is ready to be considered for changes, often after passing out of a smaller standing committee, allowing the entire membership to act as a committee to revise it before a final vote.
The bill that was sent to general orders was H561, the “Flag” bill.
One bill of note, H579, dealt with archaic language in the “Justifiable Homicide” statute. The original language stated:
“Homicide is justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:(c) When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person”
The corrected language removed the string of persons defensible and simply replaced that phrase with “another person”.
It passed 68-1-1. I voted for it.
The controversial bill for today was H583, which sought to streamline and standardize existing law regarding the limitations in the regulation of short-term rentals (STR’s). I received much communication for and against. And I spent quite a bit of time investigating the history, regulation, and concerns about this particular use of property. I had a tremendous number of emails encouraging me to vote for H583 and quite a few encouraging me to vote against it. It passed 54-16-0, and I voted for it. Here was my explanation to folks who encourage me to vote against it:
I believe that House Bill 583 (HB 583), which amends Idaho Code Sections 67-6539 and 63-1804 balances local governance with protections for short-term and vacation rentals. It ensures proper local control while curbing overregulation and safeguarding property rights.
The bill maintains proper local control by allowing counties and cities to enact reasonable regulations for public health, safety, and welfare, as long as they align with uniform standards from the Idaho Building Code Board and the International Building Codes (IBC). Locals can require specific safety measures, such as smoke alarms in sleeping areas, fire extinguishers and CO detectors per floor, escape ladders for upper floors, IBC-based occupancy limits, and emergency handouts. Remember that the rentals remain subject to general local ordinances like noise, nuisance, parking, curfew, and traffic rules, which are enforceable through police and may even levy fines on violators.
It restrains overregulation by prohibiting ordinances that discriminatorily target rentals, such as bans on short-term uses, requirements for owner-occupancy, professional management, extra insurance, inspections, structural modifications, or limits on rental days. These rentals are classified as non-transient residential uses, subject only to state-adopted building codes, preventing pretextual “health and safety” rules that lead to litigation or patchwork restrictions.
In short, HB 583 protects individual property rights by affirming rentals as residential land uses, barring licenses, fees, permits, or registrations for operation, and ensuring equal treatment with single-family homes. It prevents regulatory takings, like forcing long-term tenancies, and strengthens tax compliance via marketplaces without imposing undue burdens on owners.
Overall, HB 583 promotes consistency, accountability through market reviews and enforcement, and neighborhood integrity without infringing on owners’ rights.
HB 583 was the culmination of a three-year collaboration between STR owners and local governance. I am confident it meets the requirements of state oversight and of local governance.
Friday February 13.
This morning’s Revenue and Taxation committee fielded two RS’s and three bills. None of them were particularly contentious and addressed mostly mundane issues.
The floor session, which began at 11 AM, dealt with four bills. A Mason’s procedure was used to call a bill up from the second reading calendar that needed to be dealt with in a timely manner. The Majority Leader moved to dispense with all rules that would prevent moving House Bill 613 to the third reading calendar. That motion passed unanimously. This bill amended existing law, which would provide for securing insurance coverage for private facilities used as polling places, and it would limit liability for private facilities used for polling places on election day. The bill passed 68-0-2, I voted for it.
House Bill 587 which amended existing law to allow continuous appropriation of the rangeland improvement account, passed 44-25-1. I voted against it because continuous appropriations remove ongoing oversight by the legislature. We can only address the spending after the money has been expended. We tried to explain in the debate that this bill should fail only because it removes proper legislative oversight. The appropriation was fine, and the expenditures looked to be fine. It was simply the lack of transparency that concerned the 25 who voted against it.
My afternoon committee, which was Business, had 11 RS’s to deal with. In the interest of an earlier finish, and not very often use motion was made. One of the members, with the chairman’s permission, asked if anybody had concerns with any of the RS’s that were presented. No one spoke up, so he made the motion that all 11 RS’s be introduced. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting adjourned.
Comments