Legislative Session: Week 4

February 2-6: This week, we were able to vote on some things. On Monday, House Bill 493, which amended existing law to revise the penalty for soliciting commercial sexual activity, finally came to the floor. My concerns with that bill stemmed from several things. Selective enforcement, unequal application of the law, and several people brought up the fact that this was going to exacerbate the overcrowding of our prisons. It’s an overreaction to consensual relations. Other concerns revolved around sex trafficking. Idaho already has strong sex trafficking laws, so this was unnecessary. I voted no, but the bill passed 50 to 19.

House Bill 514, which allows students to take their examinations upon completing 80% of their education hours, passed 69-0-1. I voted yes. For clarity, when I record a vote like the last one, the first number is the yes vote, the second number is the no vote, and the third number is the absent and excused number.

In the Local Government Committee on Monday, we had House Bill H557, which preempts burdensome local ordinances and resolves the patchwork that exists throughout the state regarding antidiscrimination ordinances. Sandpoint’s mayor, Jeremy Grimm, testified in favor and spoke to me at length about it. I voted yes to send it to the floor with the do-pass recommendation, and it passed in committee and will go on to the second reading calendar.

The Revenue and Taxation committee fielded House Bill 559, which was to align Idaho’s tax code with the federal tax code. It is known as the Internal Revenue Code conformity bill. It essentially aligns Idaho’s tax rules with federal tax rules. This bill is passed every year by the House in the Senate and usually consists of a date change or maybe one or two different types of deductions that occur that are different in Idaho than they are at the federal level. This year, we had a special situation with a shortfall in state revenue. I spent quite a bit of time studying this bill, talking with the authors, and looking into the numbers that they were providing. I am confident that the state can conform to the federal tax rules that came out of the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which gives significant tax breaks to waitresses, everyday workers, and just regular folk. Conformity will benefit 91% of Idahoans. Some examples are:

• The average Senior Citizen taxpayer will receive $389.

• A waitress in the middle class with the average tips that waitresses get will benefit to the tune of about $1550.

• The working middle class will average a benefit of $569, which means if both spouses are working, that will work out to $1138.

Those are just some examples that the Idaho tax commission worked out for us.

Several RS’s came up in the Business Committee. Since they are not yet printed, I can’t give too much detail, but there is a short-term rental RS that was passed and sent to be printed (that means it will become the bill). And E-Verify RS was passed. And with the one bill that we had the hearing on was H5 12, a Survey or licensing bill which allows surveyors to take an open-book test, but it provides more education for them. It’s interesting to note that different states have different surveying rules. This particular bill ensures that the Idaho-specific rules will be adequately taught to up-and-coming surveyors so they don’t make mistakes that can be costly for homeowners and property owners.

The Revenue and Taxation Committee addressed Idaho sales tax administrative rules and hotel/motel room and campground sales tax rules. There were some concerns about a difference of opinion between the rules and the state code regarding yard sales. The rules stipulated that once a person had three yard sales, their 3^rd yard sale would be considered becoming a retail store, and they would have to pay sales tax on their sales. The state passed a statute last session that changed that so that “yard salers” would not have to pay sales tax until they had sold more than $5000. That particular set of rules was sent back to the tax commission to correct, and we will pass it on Monday of next week.

Tuesday ended up being another slow day. In the Business Committee, we addressed short-term rentals, E-Verify, which was put off, inspections, surveys, licensing, and other RS’s.

In Revenue and Taxation, we addressed sales and use tax administrative rules, and hotel/motel room and campground sales tax administrative rules.

In the legislative session in the House, on the second reading calendar was H559-taxation. This bill was the conformity bill that I spoke of, which we heard previously in the Revenue and Taxation Committee. After debate, it passed 59-9-2. I voted for it because I am convinced that the work has been done to prevent needless loss of services, while conforming the Idaho tax code to the federal tax code and giving Idaho taxpayers needed tax relief.

The third reading calendar was dispensed with and forwarded to the following day.

On Wednesday, February 4, the Local Government committee dealt with to RS’s and two bills, including H554, the mosquito abatement bill, which was sent back to the author for revision. The bill detailing placing solid waste facilities squarely under the Department of Environmental Quality and removing them from the Health District oversight passed out of committee. On the floor, 10 bills were considered. HCR 24 was a House concurrent resolution honoring the fallen firefighters from Kootenai County. It passed unanimously, 68-0-2. (Remember that means 68 yes, 0 no, and 2 absent and excused) H547, the cosmetology license or change was sent to general orders.

In the Idaho Legislature, sending a bill to “General Orders” (in the House) or the “14th Order” (in the Senate) means the bill has advanced to the floor for a full, in-depth, chamber-wide review, where it can be amended, debated, and changed before a final vote. It is essentially a “Committee of the Whole” session, allowing all members to propose amendments to the bill’s content.

Other important bills that were taken up included HJM 9, which requested the federal government to ensure proper application of the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). That bill passed 69-0-1.

On Thursday, February 5, the Business Committee dealt with “rules”. The House Revenue and Taxation Committee heard one RS and one bill passed the RS to printing, and sent the bill to the floor with the do-pass recommendation. The bill was H551 and essentially allowed fire protection districts and ambulance districts. The upshot of this bill was to give fire and ambulance districts a way to capture a bigger share (80–90%) of the property tax growth from new development in or near former URA areas, especially after they pull out of the urban renewal setup. Without this, much of that growth revenue would stay locked in the urban renewal pot or not flow to them at all.

On the floor of the House, one bill came up, H557, which added to the existing law providing uniformity in local government anti-discrimination ordinances. From the statement of purpose, here is a description of the reason for the bill:

The Uniformity in Local Anti-discrimination Ordinances Act would prevent local governmental entities, such ascounties and cities, from enacting ordinances that impose some anti-discrimination requirements beyond whatis required by state law. Idaho currently prohibits certain forms of discrimination in employment, housing, education, and public accommodations on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin.

This legislation would preempt burdensome local ordinances and bring these regulations into alignment with state law. Under the legislation, the Attorney General may seek injunctive relief against a local governmental entity that violates the provisions of the law. Businesses, property owners, and residents would also have standing to challenge anti-discrimination ordinances which exceed what state law allows. This was a commonsense bill that removes ambiguity in differing nondiscrimination ordinances throughout the state. The mayor of Sandpoint testified in favor, citing the inability to handle potential litigation coming from such an ordinance. I voted in favor. It passed the House floor 53-16-1.

Friday, February 6, I had no committee meetings, but I presented my Restroom Protection RS in the State Affairs Committee at 9 AM. There were a multitude of questions, most of which I was able to answer, and although an RS presentation is not usually a hearing, it proceeded much like a hearing, with 25 or so minutes of questions. It eventually passed out of committee and so is introduced and will become a bill. The vote was 10 to 3. On the floor, the only bill that came up was HCR 25, which is a call for a constitutional convention under Article 5 of the Constitution for proposing amendments with a balanced budget amendment. I debated against it because the only precedent we have for a constitutional convention is the one in 1787, which ended up violating the commission that delegates were given to “render the Constitution adequate to the exigencies of the union”. In other words, it was a strictly limited authority to tweak the articles of Confederation so that they met the needs of the new union. The delegates discarded their commissions, which were identical from all 12 states (Rhode Island refused to attend), and discarded the Articles of Confederation as well, and came up with our new constitution. This being the only precedent that exists, and for a multitude of other reasons which I can detail if someone wants to know, I voted against. It passed, however, 36-34-0.

Stay up-to-date with Representative Cornel Rasor HERE.