>> PRESENTATION OF "IDAHO REPORTS" ON IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION IS MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF THE LAURA MOORE CUNNINGHAM FOUNDATION, COMMITTED TO FULFILLING THE MOORE AND BETTIS FAMILY LEGACY OF BUILDING THE GREAT STATE OF IDAHO.

BY THE FRIENDS OF IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION, AND BY THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING.

>> COVID-19 CASES ARE DROPPING STATEWIDE, AND ACTION AT THE LEGISLATURE IS RAMPING UP.

BUT IT WOULDN'T BE A LEGISLATIVE SESSION WITHOUT A LITTLE INFIGHTING.

I'M MELISSA DAVLIN.

"IDAHO REPORTS" STARTS NOW.

>> HELLO, AND WELL.COM "IDAHO REPORTS."

THIS WEEK, HOUSE ASSISTANT MAJORITY LEADER JASON MONKS AND SENATE MINORITY LEADER MICHELLE STENNETT GIVE ME THEIR TAKE ON TAX PROPOSALS IN THE LEGISLATURE.

THEN, JAMES DAWSON OF BOISE STATE PUBLIC RADIO UPDATES US ON A BILL TO SET A HIGHER BAR FOR VOTER INITIATIVES.

FINALLY, BETSY RUSSELL OF THE IDAHO PRESS GIVES US A RUNDOWN ON A CONTENTIOUS WEEK.

>> BUT FIRST A. COVID-19 UPDATE.

AS THE STATE'S POSITIVITY RATE HAS DROPPED TO 5.8%, THE LOWEST IDAHO HAS SEEN SINCE JUNE, THE CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD VOTED UNANIMOUSLY FRIDAY TO REMOVE THE HEALTH ORDERS MANDATING MASKS BE WORN IN PUBLIC IN ADA AND VALLEY COUNTIES.

THAT MANDATE TURNS INTO AN ADVISORY FOR RESIDENTS OF ADA, VALLEY, BOISE, AND ELMORE COUNTIES.

EARLIER THIS MONTH, EASTERN IDAHO PUBLIC HEALTH DISTRICT ALSO LIFTED MASK MANDATE IN BONNEVILLE, CUSTER, AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES.

SOME CITIES, INCLUDING BOISE AND POCATELLO, HAVE IMPLEMENTED MASK MANDATE IN CITY LIMITS THAT REMAIN IN EFFECT.

THIS COMES AS THE IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE HAS CONFIRMED THE ARRIVAL OF THE SO-CALLED SOUTH AFRICA VARIANT OF COVID-19 IN THE STATE, AND CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH WASTEWATER TESTING SHOWS LOW LEVELS OF THE UK AND CALIFORNIA VARIANTS IN ADA COUNTY.

MEANWHIE, LAWMAKERS STILL HAVE THEIR EYE ON THE GOVERNOR'S POWERS DURING AN EMERGENCY DECLARATION O TUESDAY, THE HOUSE PASSED A BILL THAT LIMITS WHAT A GOVERNOR CAN DO DURING FUTURE DECLARATIONS AND WOULD REFER ANY RULE CHANGES RELATED TO THAT DECLARATION AFTER 60 DAYS.

>> THIS LEGISLATION CLARIFIES THAT YOU CAN'T CHANGE LAWS.

THAT'S THE LEGISLATORS' PREROGATIVE, WE THINK IT SHOULD MAINTAIN HERE, THAT'S WHAT THE LEGISLATURE'S DESIGNED FOR.

I THINK IF YOU LOOK BACK TO AUGUST WHEN WE HAD OUR SPECIAL SESSION THERE, WE DID THAT VERY THING.

SO I THINK THAT EVIDENCE THAT WE CAN GET THE JOB DONE, IF NEXT BUT AGAIN, THAT'S THE PURVIEW OF THE LEGISLATURE.

THE LAST THING THIS LEGISLATION DOES IS IT PROTECTS THESE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT WE HAVE.

AND I HESITATE EVEN SAYING THAT, BECAUSE IN MY OPINION, AN EMERGENCY DOES NOT NEGATE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

>> THERE'S A REASON THAT THIS HAS BEEN LODGED IN EXECUTIVE POWER.

BECAUSE IT'S REALLY HARD FOR 105 PEOPLE TO COME TOGETHER IN A TRULY URGENT SITUATION AND COME UP WITH A DIRECTION TO ACT IN THAT MOMENT.

>> WHAT IF THE GOVERNOR WAS FROM FLORIDA, I LIKE THE WAY THINGS ARE GOING OVER THERE.

BUT YOU MAY NOT.

OR FOR SOME OF THE REST OF US, WHAT IF IT WAS A GOVERNOR FROM WISH, OR GOOD HEAVENLY DAYS, IN CALIFORNIA, GAVIN NEWSOM, OR THE GOVERNOR FROM CALIFORNIA, OR WHAT IF IT WAS, OH, MY HECK, THE GOVERNOR FROM NEW YORK!

WE WOULD WANT TO HAVE A MEANS OF REDRESSING SOME OF THESE THINGS THAT WE PERCEIVE AS BEING INCORRECT AND UNJUSTLY PUT UPON US.

>> HOUSE ASSISTANT MAJORITY LEADER JASON MONKS, THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL, SAYS THE LEGISLATION WOULDN'T AFFECT FEDERAL FEMA FUNDING.

BUT EMERGENCY POWERS AREN'T THE ONLY THING ON THE LEGISLATURE'S MIND THIS YEAR.

THIS WEEK, BOTH REPRESENTATIVE MONKS AND SENATE MINORITY LEADER MICHELLE STENNETT JOINED ME TO DISCUSS TAX PROPOSALS FROM THEIR CAUCUSES, AS WELL AS THEIR THOUGHTS ON OTHER PROPOSALS.

>> CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH THE MAJORITY PARTY LEADERSHIP'S TAX CUT PROPOSAL?

>> SO THERE WAS ONE INTRODUCED RECENTLY, AND I'M GOING TO LEAVE OUT A LOT OF THE DETAILS.

BUT THE BASICS OF IT WAS THAT IT WAS GOING TO REDUCE THE INCOME TAX BRACKET DOWN TO 6.5 AND IT WAS GOING TO REDUCE SALES TAX ON ALL ITEMS DOWN TO 5.3.

SO FROM 6% DOWN TO 5.3.

AND THAT WAS ABOUT A $280 MILLION TAX RELIEF PACKAGE TO THE CITIZENS OF IDAHO.

I THINK IT'S A GREAT PACKAGE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE PACKAGE THAT WILL END UP ACROSS THE FINISH LINE WHEN WE'RE ALL DONE.

I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER BILL THAT WILL BE INTRODUCED NEXT WEEK THAT HAD MORE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS, WITH THAT ONE I BELIEVE, DON'T HOLD ME TO, THAT I'M NOT THE CHAIRMAN OF THAT COMMITTEE AND I'M NOT EVEN ON THAT COMMITTEE, BUT THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, THAT THERE WILL BE ANOTHER PACKAGE THAT WILL BE INTRODUCED.

SO YOU'LL SEE A FEW OF THESE PACKAGES INTRODUCED, AND WE WILL ULTIMATELY LAND ON SOMETHING, I THINK IT WOULD BE A FAILURE OF THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION IF WE DIDN'T PROVIDE SOME KIND OF TAX RELIEF TO OUR CITIZENS.

BUT I'M CONFIDENT THAT WE WILL DO SOMETHING.

>> LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE PROPERTY TAX PROPOSALS.

CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH THE SPECIFICS OF IT AND HOW MUCH IT WOULD COST?

>> THERE'S MORE THAN ONE.

SO I SPEAK TO SPECIFIC NUMBERS, I DO KNOW THAT I DISAGREE WITH THE HOUSE BILL THAT JUST CAME OUT THAT'S TALKING ABOUT TAX RELIEF.

BECAUSE WE ARE SITTING ON ALL TOLD, ALMOST A BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF ASSETS AND REVENUES THAT WE SHOULD BE PUTTING TOWARDS INFRASTRUCTURE, HIGHWAY SYSTEMS, HEALTHCARE, SCHOOLS, HIGHER EDUCATION, AND THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT GIVING A TAX RELIEF INSTEAD OF PROPERTY TAX RELIEF, JUST TAX BREAKS.

AND THAT REALLY IS NOT -- IS GOING TO ACTUALLY INCREASE TAXES TO PEOPLE WHO EARN UNDER $50,000 A YEAR, AND TO MANY FAMILIES, LARGER FAMILIES, AND I JUST THINK WE HAVE TO BE TALKING A MORE STRATEGICALLY ABOUT WHERE WE GET THAT RELIEF.

SO SOME OF THAT WOULD BE GROCERY TAX RELIEF, LIKE I SAID, THE HOMEOWNERS EXEMPTION, AND CIRCUIT BREAKER, AND WE'D HAVE TO COME AT IT IN SMALL BACK BITES, BECAUSE ONE THING IS NOT GOING TO GIVE PROTECTION OR RELIEF TO PEOPLE, IT WILL BE A CLUSTER OF IDEAS AND LEGISLATION THAT HAVE THE MOST IMPACT FOR THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF IDAHOANS.

>> SOME HOUSE REPUBLICANS WANT TO SEE THE GROCERY TAX ENTIRELY ELIMINATED F THAT HITS THE HOUSE FLOOR, WOULD YOU SUPPORT IT?

>> I WILL SUPPORT ANY TAX RELIEF PACKAGE THAT HITS THE FLOOR.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE BEST RESPONSE, ACTUALLY.

BUT WOULD I SUPPORT IT?

ABSOLUTELY.

IF WE RAISE THE GROCERY TAX CREDIT, WOULD I SUPPORT THAT?

ABSOLUTELY.

I ACTUALLY THINK THAT'S A BETTER APPROACH THAN JUST REMOVING IT ALL TOGETHER.

THE RESEARCH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT FOR THE ELDERLY AND FOR FAMILIES THAT HAVE THREE, FOUR, AND MORE KIDS, THAT BY ELIMINATING THAT GROCERY TAX CREDIT AND TAKING THE TAX OFF OF GROCERIES, THAT WILL BE TAX INCREASE TO THOSE SEGMENTS OF THE POPULATION.

SO YOU WILL SEE THAT THAT WILL NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE ELDERLY, AND THE LARGER FAMILIES.

AND SO I'M NOT OVERLY EXCITED ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR APPROACH, BUT IF WE COULD DO A REMOVAL OF THE TAX ON GROCERIES AND INCLUDE SOME OTHER RELIEF FOR THOSE OTHER DEMOGRAPHICS OF SOCIETY, I GUESS, THEN I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF IT.

BUT I THINK THERE'S A BETTER PATH FORWARD.

>> SOME HOUSE REPUBLICANS WANT TO SEE THAT GROCERY TAX ELIMINATED.

SO IF THAT HIT THE SENATE FLOOR, WOULD YOU SUPPORT IT?

>> IT DEPENDS ON THE LANGUAGE.

WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT SALE, ACTUALLY, AND GROCERY TAXES ARE PAID BY EVERYBODY WHO COMES TO THE STATE.

AND HELPS US BUILD OUR REVENUE BASE TO PROVIDE SERVICES.

SO IT ISN'T JUST THE LOCAL PEOPLE, IT'S ANYBODY WHO IS TRAVELING THROUGH, AND EVERYBODY PAYS PIECE INTO OUR SALES TAX OR GROCERY TAX.

I DO WANT TO TRY TO GIVE RELIEF TO THOSE THAT HAVE THE LOWER ECONOMICS TO COME UP WITH A FORMULA WHERE WE GIVE SOME RELIEF.

THERE'S TALK PROBABLY NOT GIVING TOTAL RELIEF, JUST BECAUSE, AGAIN, THAT IS A LARGE PRICE TAG FOR RIGHT NOW.

SO IT WOULD REALLY DEPEND ON THE LANGUAGE, I WOULD DO SOMETHING THAT'S MODIFIED AND PROBABLY NOT WHOLESALE.

I THINK RIGHT NOW WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT HOW WE MANAGE THE RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE ACQUIRED SO WE KNOW WHAT TO PUT IT INTO AGAIN.

I SPEAK TO INFRASTRUCTURE AND THAT SORT OF THING AS WE MOVE OUT OF THE PANDEMIC.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE NEW FUTURE LOOKS LIKE, AND PLAN -- I LIKE TO PLAN MORE LONG-TERM AND NOT FROM ONE ELECTION CYCLE TO THE NEXT.

SO WE'LL -- BUT I WOULD ENTERTAIN IT, I JUST WOULD HAVE TO SEE THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL.

>> ALSO THIS WEEK, HOUSE JUDICIARY AND RULES CHAIRMAN GREG CHENEY AND REPRESENTATIVE BROOKE GREEN INTRODUCED LEGISLATION THAT WOULD PROHIBIT TARGETED PICKETING AT INDIVIDUALS' PRIVATE HOMES.

THE LEGISLATION CAME AFTER MULTIPLE INCIDENTS IN THE PAST YEAR AT PUBLIC OFFICIALS' RESIDENCES.

AT A WEDNESDAY HEARING ON THE BILL, SOME OF THOSE PROTESTERS MADE IT CLEAR THEY WERE UNHAPPY WITH THE PROPOSAL.

>> I WENT TO A TARGETED PROTEST AND FREAKING HATED IT!

IT SUCKED!

I HATED IT!

BUT I FELT I HAD NO OPTION.

I'M OUT OF OPTIONS.

WHERE DO I GO?

THAT'S HOW WE GOT HERE.

SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO MAKE ANOTHER LAW THAT SAYS SHUT UP, PEOPLE!

SHUT UP!

>> ONE THING YOU HAVE TO SAY IS IF YOU GUYS WOULD HAVE LEFT OUR HOUSES ALONE WE WOULD HAVE LEFT YOUR HOUSES ALONE AS WELL.

WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO PEACEABLY PROTEST WHENEVER WE DEEM IT NECESSARY.

MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T BE WRITING BILLS THAT THE PEOPLE DON'T AGREE WITH, AND WE WOULDN'T NEED TO COME TO YOUR HOMES.

>> HOURS AFTER THAT WEDNESDAY HEARING, PROTESTERS CAME TO REPRESENTATIVE CHENEY'S CALDWELL HOME.

ACCORDING TO HIM, ONE HUNG A STUFFED ANIMAL IN EFFIGY.

THE HEARING ON THAT BILL CONTINUED FRIDAY AFTERNOON.

WE'LL HAVE MORE LATER IN THE SHOW.

>> DURING MY INTERVIEW WAS SENATOR STENNETT AND REPRESENTATIVE MONKS THIS WEEK, I ASKED THEIR THOUGHTS ON THE LEGISLATURE'S ROLE IN PUBLIC DISCOURSE.

OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS WE'VE SEEN HEATED PROTESTS AT GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN IDAHO, AND IN SOME CASES INDIVIDUALS' PRIVATE HOMES.

SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE HAVE MORE OF A ROLE IN TONING DOWN RHETORIC OR TURNING DOWN THE TEMPERATURE, SETTING THAT TONE FOR PUBLIC DISCOURSE?

>> I THINK ELECTED OFFICIALS DO HAVE A ROLE IN THAT PROCESS.

AS FAR AS WHEN WE INCITE INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE, AND I WISH WE AS A POLITICAL SOCIETY, NOT JUST IN IDAHO, BUT IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES, WOULD TRY TO COME TO BETTER -- COME TO REALIZE MOST PEOPLE HAVE THE BEST OF INTENTIONS.

WE OBVIOUSLY DIFFER ON WHERE WE THINK WE SHOULD END UP AS FAR AS OUR ULTIMATE GOAL.

AND THAT'S OKAY.

THAT'S GOOD AND HEALTHY.

SO I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT KINDER, A LITTLE BIT MORE PATIENT AND UNDERSTANDING THAT PEOPLE I THINK JUST WANT THE BEST, AND AS FAR AS THE CITIZENS' PROTESTS, I ABSOLUTELY ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO SO.

THAT'S ONE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENTS IN OUR CONSTITUTION, TALKS ABOUT THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE FOR REDRESS WITH YOUR GOVERNMENT.

AND THAT'S IMPORTANT.

WE NEED TO HEAR THAT, WHEN THE CITIZENS ARE UPSET ENOUGH ABOUT SOMETHING, THAT'S ONE OF THEIR RIGHTS, AND THEY NEED TO DO THAT.

WHEN THEY CROSS THE LINE OF MAKING IT VIOLENT, THAT'S OBVIOUSLY -- THAT'S A PROBLEM FOR ME.

SO PEACEFUL -- DEMONSTRATION AND PROTESTS, I ABSOLUTELY ENCOURAG, AND IN FACT I LIKE IT.

I THINK IT'S HEALTHY.

>> DO YOU THINK THOSE PROTESTS SHOULD BE OCCURRING AT INDIVIDUALS' HOMES?

>> I WOULD HOPE PEOPLE WOULDN'T DO THAT.

I THINK THAT'S INAPPROPRIATE.

I THINK IT'S DISRESPECTFUL NOT TO -- NOT ONLY TO THAT INDIVIDUAL, BUT TO THE NEIGHBORS.

AND YOU HAVE TO REALIZE THAT WHETHER THE POLITICIAN HAS KIDS, NEIGHBORS WILL HAVE KIDS, THAT'S JUST COMPLETELY OUT OF LINE.

IN MY WORLD.

I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD DO IT.

HOWEVER, I DON'T THINK WE AS A GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROHIBIT THAT EITHER.

THERE IS PUBLIC SPACE, AND ON A -- ROADS OR SIDEWALKS, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT ON MY PERSONAL PROPERTY, PEOPLE SHOULD BE FREE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

SO IT'S -- I THINK IT'S A FINE LINE THAT WE'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ADDRESS, AND IF OUR CURRENT LAWS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR TRESPASSING AND FOR DISTURBING THE PEACE, THAT IS WHAT WE SHOULD LOOK AT.

I THINK IN MY OPINION, BUT I HESITATE TO SAY BLANKET YOU CAN'T PROTEST OUT IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WORKS, IN A DOWNTOWN SCENARIO IF I'M STAYING IN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX RIGHT NEXT TO THE CAPITOL.

WHAT -- WHERE'S THE LINE ON THAT?

OBVIOUSLY IT'S DIFFERENT FOR SOMEBODY LIVING IN THE RURAL COMMUNITIES VERSUS IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT.

BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL WHEN WE START LOOKING AT ANY INFRINGEMENTS ON OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

>> I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT THE LEGISLATURE SETS THE EXAMPLE FOR THE CIVILITY AND THE PROTOCOLS WE WISH TO SEE AROUND US, AND THE EXAMPLE WE GIVE TO THE PEOPLE WHO WE REPRESENT.

I DON'T THINK YOU GET VERY FAR BEING VIOLENT OR DESTRUCTIVE.

PEOPLE DO HAVE A RIGHT TO DEMONSTRATE AND HAVE A SAY.

BUT IF THEY TRESPASS, THEN WE HAVE VERY STRONG TRESPASS LAWS, AND THEY SHOULD BE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S A PUBLIC SPACE AND A PRIVATE SPACE.

I THINK THAT IF YOU END UP BEING SO INCREDIBLY ANGRY AND TOO FORCEFUL, IT TENDS NOT TO HELP THE DIALOGUE OR COMING TO SOME KIND OF AGREEMENT ABOUT HOW WE CAN DO A BETTER JOB GOING FORWARD.

I REALLY STRONGLY BELIEVE IN A RESPECTFUL CIVIL PROCESS.

I THINK THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD BE SETTING THAT EXAMPLE.

>> TO HEAR MORE ABOUT ALL THE TOPICS WE COVERED, YOU'LL FIND MY ENTIRE CONVERSATION WAS REPRESENTATIVE MONKS AND SENATOR STENNETT ON THE IDAHO REPORTS YOUTUBE CHANNEL.

YOU'LL FIND THE LINK AT IDAHOPTV.ORG/IDAHOREPORT.

AND WHILE YOU'RE THERE, HIT SUBSCRIBE.

>> THAT HEARING WASN'T THE ONLY CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE IN FRONT OF LAWMAKERS THIS WEEK.

THE SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE CONIDERED LEGISLATION THAT WOULD MAKE IT HARDER TO GET A VOTER INITIATIVE ON THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT IN IDAHO.

JAMES DAWSON OF BOISE STATE PUBLIC RADIO HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THIS ISSUE CLOSELY, AND JOINS ME ON FRIDAY TO GIVE US THE RUNDOWN.

THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH THE SENATE VOTER INITIATIVE PROPOSAL?

>> SURE.

SO THIS WOULD SIMPLY MAKE IT SO CAMPAIGNS WE'RE TRYING TO PUT AN INITIATIVE ON THE BALLOT, WOULD HAVE TO GET A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SIGNATURES FROM EACH OF IDAHO'S 35 LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS.

AND RIGHT NOW THEY HAVE TO GET A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SIGNATURES IN 18 OF THE 35 LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS.

SO WHILE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNATURES OVERALL DOESN'T CHANGE, THE GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, AND IT WOULD REQUIRE THESE CAMPAIGNS TO HAVE PEOPLE GOING INTO EACH, AGAIN, EACH OF THESE 35 LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS ACROSS THE STATE TO GET A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SIGNATURES.

>> WHAT'S THE LOGIC FROM THE BILL'S SPONSORS?

>> WELL, THEY SAY RIGHT NOW YOU CAN GET A WHOLE LOT OF SIGNATURES AND MOST OF IT -- MOST OF THE INITIATIVE PUT ON THE BALLOT IN JUST A FEW COUNTIES ACROSS THE STATE.

AND THEY SAY THAT RURAL IDAHO NEEDS MORE REPRESENTATION.

BUT AS WE HEARD THIS MORNING FROM PEOPLE LIKE RETIRED BOISE STATE POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSOR, RURAL IDAHO HAS A WHOLE LOT OF REPRESENTATION IN THE STATE HOUSE, HUGE NUMBER OF ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE FROM RURAL AREAS, AND NOT TO MENTION THEIR PROFESSIONS ARE LARGELY FARMING, RANCHING, THESE EGRUYERAN TYPE OF PROFESSIONS THAT THEY SAY NEED A BIGGER VOICE IN THE HOUSE STATE WHEN THERE ALREADY IS A HUGE INFLUENCE THERE.

>> THIS SOUNDS PRETTY FAMILIAR TO THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD TWO YEARS AGO WHEN A SIMILAR PROPOSAL WAS IN FRONT OF THE LEGISLATURE AND GOT VETOED BY GOVERNOR LITTLE.

HOW IS THIS ONE DIFFERENT?

>> THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT IN THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT KIND OF LIKE A -- AN ASSAULT FROM ALL ANGLES.

AS THOSE TWO BILLS WERE -- THAT WOULD HAVE INCREASED THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DISTRICTS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN NEEDED TO QUALIFY, IT WOULD HAVE UPPED THE SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS, IT WOULD HAVE ALSOS LESSENED THE TIME LIMIT THAT CAMPAIGNS HAVE.

RIGHT NOW THEY HAVE 18 MONTHS, AND THAT WOULD HAVE TAKEN IT DOWN TO SIX MONTHS, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.

GOVERNOR BRAD LITTLE, LIKE YOU MENTIONED, SAID THAT HE WORRIED THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND HE SAID HE RELUCTANTLY VETOED IT, QUOTE, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT THE NINTH CIRCUIT DECIDING WHAT IDAHO'S INITIATIVE PROCESS WOULD HAVE BEEN.

>> THERE WERE A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE WHO TESTIFIED AGAINST THIS, MANY OF WHOM HAVE EITHER BEEN INVOLVED IN PAST INITIATIVES OR HAVE THEIR EYE ON POTENTIAL FUTURE ONES.

WHAT WERE THEIR CONCERNS?

>> IT'S TRUE, AND IT WAS LARGELY WHAT WE HEARD TWO YEARS AGO, TO¶ TOO.

THEY VIEWED THIS AS RETRIBUTION FOR MEDICAID EXPANSION PASSING ON THE BALLOT BY ALMOST 61% IN 2018.

AND THERE'S SOME TRUTH HISTORICAL TRUTH TO THAT.

FOR THE PAST SEVERAL DECADES, WE'VE SEEN THE LEGISLATURE PASS NEW LAWS AND RESTRICTIONS ON THE INITIATIVE PROCESS WHEN, FOR EXAMPLE, TERM LIMITS IN THE '90s PASSED, AND THEY DIDN'T LIKE THAT AND THEY REVERSED IT IN THE EARLY 2000s.

BUT SO THERE WAS THAT.

YOU ALSO HAD LIKE YOU MENTIONED, THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA FOLKS WHO ARE TRYING TO GET AN INITIATIVE ON THE BALLOT, THEY ARE SAYING, WELL, THIS IS DIRECTLY AIMED AT US TOO, AND THERE'S SOME TRUTH TO THAT WHEN YOU HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FROM SENATOR SCOTT GROWE, THAT JUST PASSED THE SENATE I BELIEVE EARLIER THIS MONTH, THAT WOULD MAKE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR A CITIZENS INITIATIVE TO GET ANY KIND OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA ON THE BALLOT.

>> I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT THAT.

HOW THIS EFFORT PLAYS INTO OTHER CONVERSATIONS THAT THE LEGISLATURE IS HAVING RIGHT NOW, THAT OBVIOUS -- THE OBVIOUS ONE IS THAT MEDICAL MARIJUANA INITIATIVE.

BUT THERE'S ALSO A LEGISLATIVE EFFORT TO TRY AND GET MEDICAL MARIJUANA PASSED IN THE STATE AS WELL.

THOUGH VERY RESTRICTIVE.

I'M CURIOUS HOW THIS COMPARES TO OTHER STATES THAT ALLOW VOTER INITIATIVES.

>> YEAH.

IT'S DIFFICULT TO COMPARE APPLES TO ORANGES, I WOULD SAY THAT WHEN I'VE TALKED TO EXPERTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, THEY CERTAINLY SAY THAT IDAHO IS ONE OF THE MORE RESTRICTIVE IN THE COUNTRY.

FOR EXAMPLE, WE REQUIRE SIX -- THIS IS WONKY, BUT WE REQUIRE 6% OF THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE LAST GENERAL ELECTION, AND ONLY ONE OTHER STATE IS BASING THE SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT ON THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS.

WHETHER OR NOT THEY ACTUALLY CAST A BALLOT.

THAT'S THE BIG THING.

MOST STATES EITHER REQUIRE THE SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT TO BE BASED ON THE NUMBER OF VOTES CAST IN A PRESIDENTIAL OR GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION.

IF THIS WERE TO PASS, IDAHO WOULD BE THE ONLY STATE IN THE COUNTRY THAT WOULD REQUIRE THESE SIGNATURES COME FROM EACH OF THE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS.

THERE ARE TWO STATES THAT REQUIRE SIGNATURES COMING FROM ALL CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS, BUT THOSE ARE HUGE.

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS ARE VAST, IDAHO ONLY HAS TWO.

AS OPPOSED TO 35.

>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 6% OF REGISTERED VOTERS IN A LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT.

OF COURSE THERE ARE BIG DISPARITIES BETWEEN POPULATION SIZES AS IDAHO -- SOME PARTS OF IDAHO HAVE GROWN AND OTHERS HAVE SHRUNK JUST IN THE LAST 10 YEARS THR.

ARE ALSO DISPARITIES IN THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS.

BUT WE HAVE REDISTRICTING COMING UP.

HOW MIGHT THAT CHANGE THE PICTURE?

>> IT'S GOING TO REBALANCE EVERYTHING.

WHAT LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT 27, WHICH OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD I CAN'T REMEMBER WHERE THAT IS, BUT IT HAS THE FEWEST NUMBER -- THEY HAVE JUST UNDER 21,000 REGISTERED VOTERS, AND THEN OF COURSE THE BIG ONE, DISTRICT 14, BOISE SUBURBS, EAGLE, MERIDIAN AND STAR HAS 49,000, AND I JUST LOOKED AT THESE THIS MORNING.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 28,000 PEOPLE DIFFERENCE RIGHT THERE.

REDISTRICTING REBALANCE THAT SOME, BUT CERTAINLY THE POPULATION GROWTH IN IDAHO HAS NOT BEEN ANYWHERE CLOSE TO EQUAL OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS.

AND SO IF THIS WERE TO PASS, THEN YOU WOULD CERTAINLY SEE THESE MORE RURAL AREAS HAVING FAR MORE OF A VOICE IN WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING GETS ON THE BALLOT.

>> JAMES DAWSON, BOISE STATE PUBLIC RADIO, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANKS, MELISSA.

>> AS IF THE BILLS LAWMAKERS ARE HEARING WEREN'T CONTENTIOUS ENOUGH, SOME LEGISLATORS ARE UPSET ABOUT THE BILLS THEY AREN'T HEARING.

THIS WEEK A.

GROUP OF CONSERVATIVE HOUSE REPUBLICANS USED A PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE TO GRIND FLOOR PROCEEDINGS TO A HALT IN AN ATTEMPT TO LET LEADERSHIP KNOW HOW UNHAPPY THEY WERE.

>> I'D LIKE TO REQUEST UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO DISPENSE WITH FURTHER READING OF HOUSE BILL 123.

>> THERE'S BEEN AN OBJECTION FROM THE GOOD LADY FROM DISTRICT 11.

THE CLARK MAY READ.

>> IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, HOUSE BILL 123 -- >> GOOD LADY FROM DISTRICT EIGHT HAS OBJECTED.

THE GOOD LADY FROM DISTRICT 35 HAS OBJECTED.

>> CIVILITY IS RATED AT 100% OR HIGHER.

>> MR. SPEAKER I REQUEST UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO CEASE WITH FURTHER READING OF THE BILL.

>> THE GOOD GENTLEMAN FROM DISTRICT 34 HAS OBJECTED.

THE CLERK MAY CONTINUE -- >> PERMANENT AND TOTAL, B, THE BOARD -- >> AND JOINING US TODAY TO DISCUSS THAT AND OTHER ISSUES IS BETSY RUSSELL OF THE IDAHO PRESS.

BETSY, ARE THESE PROTESTS WORKING?

ARE THOSE BILLS THAT THE CONSERVTIVE LAWMAKERS ARE UPSET AREN'T GETTING HEARINGS, ARE THEY GOING TO GET HEARINGS NOW?

>> IT'S KIND OF HARD TO TELL.

AS FAR AS WHAT EXACTLY IT IS THAT THEY WANT, WE HAVE CONTINUED TO HEAR A SPEECH EVERY DAY IN THE HOUSE FROM A MEMBER OF THE GROUP.

AND THEY ARE CONTINUING TO CALL FOR A REPEAL OF THE GOVERNOR'S EMERGENCY ORDER.

WHICH I THINK THERE'S BEEN A LEARNING PROCESS IN THE LEGISLATURE THUS FAR THIS SESSION, THAT THE REPEAL OF THE EMERGENCY DECLARATION MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH WHAT THEY'RE AFTER.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S WORKING OR NOT.

WE DID NOT SEE OBJECTIONS TO READING BILLS TODAY.

>> I'LL NOTE ONE OF THE ONES THAT THEY DECIDED NOT TO OBJECT TO WAS A BILL THAT WAS 50 PAGES LONG.

SO I IMAGINE THE CLERKS WERE PROBABLY RELIEVED AT THAT.

I WANT TO ASK YOU, EEARLIER IN THE SHOW WE TALKED ABOUT THE PROPOSAL FROM REPRESENTATIVES CHENEY AND GREEN ABOUT TARGETD PICKETING IN FRONT OF PRIVATE RESIDENCES.

FRIDAY AFTERNOON HOUSE RULES HAD THAT VOTE.

HOW DID IT GO?

>> THE BILL PASSED ON AN 11-4 VOTE.

BUT ONLY AFTER ONE OF THE MOST REFLECTIVE AND THOUGHTFUL AND HEARTFELT DEBATES I HAVE EVER SEEN IN A LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE.

I BELIEVE EVERY REPRESENTATIVE WEIGHED IN, AND TALKED ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS, ABOUT WHY THEY WERE FOR OR AGAINST THE BILL, IT WAS REALLY SOMETHING TO SEE.

>> WHAT WERE SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT CAME UP?

BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WE THOUGHT OVERWHELMING -- SAW OVERWHELMING OPPOSITION FROM THE PEOPLE WHO SHOWED UP TO TESTIFY.

AND A FEW PEOPLE WHO TESTIFIED REMOTELY TOO.

BUT THERE WERE OTHER CONCERNS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP BY THE LAWMAKERS.

>> THERE WERE.

AND THERE WERE ALSO ACTUALLY QUITE A FEW PEOPLE WHO TESTIFIED IN FAVOR OF THE BILL, INCLUDING CANYON COUNTY SHERIFF KAREN DONAHUE AND A WHOLE LOT OF OTHERS.

I THINK THERE WAS DIVIDED FEELING ABOUT THIS BILL, AND THE CONCERNS THE LEGISLATOR WERE TALKING ABOUT RANGED FROM THE CONSTITUTION, AND WANTING TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION AT THE LEVEL OF DISCOURSE IN OUR SOCIETY, HOW WE ACCOMPLISH OUR POLITICAL GOALS, AND HOW TO ACCOMMODATE PROTESTS.

AND EACH LED THEM TO A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.

>> WE ARE ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH THE LENGTH OF A NORMAL LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

RIGHT?

AND SO FAR WE'VE HAD A HANDFUL OF STAFFERS TEST POSITIVE FOR COVID-19.

AND THIS WEEK THE FIRST CONFIRMED POSITIVES AMONG LAWMAKERS.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

CAN YOU GIVE US THAT UP?

>> TWO SENATORS TESTED POSITIVE FOR COVID-19, THEY'RE BOTH OUT, BOTH HAVE APPOINTED SUBSTITUTES TO FILL IN FOR THEM, BOTH FORMER LAWMAKERS.

AND THAT DID CAUSE SOME OTHER QUARANTINING AMONG LEGISLATORS AND STAFF.

AND IT SPIKED THE CONCERNS ONCE AGAIN.

DAILY TESTING IS BEING MADE AVAILABLE TO LAWMAKERS, BUT THERE IS STILL -- THERE ARE STILL LARGE NUMBERS OF LEGISLATORS NOT WEARING MASKS AND WHO ARE TOGETHER IN INDOOR SPACES HERE.

IF THE VIRUS IS HERE, IT MAY WELL YET SPREAD MORE.

THAT DOES BRING US TO SIX CONFIRMED CASES IN THE STATE HOUSE THUS FAR DURING THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

>> YOU KNOW, THAT SAID, I HAVE BEEN WATCHING COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND FLOOR SESSIONS AND IT LOOKED LIKE AT LEAST AT THE BEGINNING OF THE WEEK A FEW MORE SENATORS THAN I'VE SEEN IN THE PAST SEEM TO BE WEARING MASKS.

HAS THIS AT ALL CHANGED THE CONVERSATION IN THE SENATE ABOUT DISTANCING OR IS IT THE SAME, THAT IT'S A RISK WE TAKE?

>> I HAVE SEEN MORE SENATORS WEARING MASKS, PARTICULARLY IN COMMITTEE HEARINGS, WHICH ARE THE ROOMS IN WHICH THEY'RE IN A SMALL ROOM, IN A CONFINED SPACE AND IT'S PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS.

THERE ARE STILL A LARGE NUMBER OF HOUSE MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT WEARING MASKS.

AND THERE ARE STILL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE NOT WEARING MASKS.

AND THE LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP HAS DECLINED TO IN ANY WAY REQUIRE THOSE, AND IN FACT TODAY THE CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH VOTED TO MAKE THE ADA COUNTY AND VALLEY COUNTY MASK MANDATE JUST ADVISORIES.

HOWEVER THE CITY OF BOISE STILL HAS A REQUIREMENT.

>> WE HAVE LESS THAN A MINUTE LEFT.

CAN YOU GIVE US AN UPDATE ON HOW THOSE TWO SENATORS ARE DOING?

>> SENATOR VAN BURTENSHAW WAS RELEASED FROM THE HOSPITAL YESTERDAY.

AND HIS WIFE SAYS HE IS FEELING MUCH BETTER.

HE DID HAVE A ROUGH GO OF IT.

SENATOR STEVE BAIR HAD MODERATE SYMPTOMS WHEN I LAST TALKED TO HIM, HE WAS AT HOME, AND JUST HEARTBROKEN ABOUT THE IDEA THAT HE HAD EXPOSED OTHER PEOPLE.

AND IT'S JUST A REMINDER THAT THIS VIRUS STRIKES EVERYONE DIFFERENTLY.

AND TO A DIFFERENT EXTENT.

AND THAT IT IS STILL HERE WITH US.

>> WE'RE SO GLAD THAT THEY ARE DOING BETTER.

BETSY RUSSELL OF THE IDAHO PRESS, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

AND THANK YOU FOR WATCHING.

REMEMBER TO CHECK OUR WEBSITE FOR MORE ONLINE EXCLUSIVE CONTENT.

WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT WEEK.

Captioning Performed By LNS Captioning ¶www.LNScaptioning.com >> PRESENTATION OF "IDAHO REPORTS" ON IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION IS MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF THE LAURA MOORE CUNNINGHAM FOUNDATION.

COMMITTED TO FULFILLING THE MOORE AND BETTIS FAMILY LEGACY OF BUILDING THE GREAT STATE OF IDAHO.

BY THE FRIENDS OF IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION, AND BY THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING.