>> 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.

>> LAWMAKERS RETURN TO THE STATEHOUSE NOVEMBER 15th TO ADDRESS CONCERNS ABOUT PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN'S COVID-19 VACCINE MANDATES.

BUT WHAT LAWMAKERS WILL ACCOMPLISH AND HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE IS ANYONE'S GUESS.

I'M MELISSA DAVLIN.

"IDAHO REPORTS" STARTS NOW.

>>> HELLO AND WELCOME TO "IDAHO REPORTS."

THIS WEEK, COMMISSION FOR REAPPORTIONMENT CHAIRS BART DAVIS AND DAN SCHMIDT JOIN KNEE TO DISCUSS THE NEW LEGISLATIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAPS AS WELL AS CRITICISMS THE COMMISSION HAS FACED.

RUDY SOTO, CHAIRMAN OF THE IDAHO DEMOCRAT PARTY'S NATIVE AMERICAN DEMOCRATS CAUCUS OUTLINES HIS CONCERNS WITH THE STATE'S REDISTRICTING PROCESS.

FINALLY, HOUSE SPEAKER SCOTT BEDKE, HOUSE MINORITY LEADER ILANA RUBEL AND SENATE PRO TEM CHUCK WINDER JOIN ME FOR A PRE-VIEW OF THE LEGISLATURE'S RETURN NEXT WEEK.

FIRST THIS WEEK, IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE OFFICIALS CONFIRM THE THE FIRST PEDIATRIC DEATH FROM COVID-19 IN IDAHO.

THE CHILD WAS UNDER A YEAR OLD AND PASSED AWAY IN OCTOBER.

THE DEPARTMENT DIDN'T RELEASE ANY OTHER DEFAILS TO PROTECT THE TEAM'S PRIVACY.

THE NEWS COMES AS COVID CASES AND HOSPITALIZATIONS ARE DROPPING STATEWIDE.

FOR MORE DETAILS AND COVID UPDATES, VISIT OUR BLOG.

YOU WILL FIND THE LINK AT.

>>> THE COMMISSION FOR REAPPORTIONMENT LOOPTED DISTRICT BOUNDARY MAPS IN A PROCESS ALL STATES UNDERGO EVERY 10 YEARS.

AFTER THE CENSUS TO MAKE SURE ALL DISTRICTS ARE ROUGHLY EQUAL IN POPULATION, TO EQUALIZE REPRESENTATION IN THOSE LEGISLATIVE BODIES.

IF THIS MAP SURVIVES COURT CHALLENGES, IT PITS MULTIPLE INCUMBENT LAWMAKERS AGAINST EACH OTHER INCLUDING SENATORS JIM RICE AND ABBY LEE IN THE NEW DISTRICT 9, HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER MIKE MOYLE AND REPRESENTATIVES TAMMY NICHOLS AND BRUCE STAUG IN THE NEW DISTRICT 10, AND SENATOR STEVE THAYN AND C. SCOTT GROW IN THE NEW DISTRICT 14.

A FEW DISTRICTS HAVE FOUR INCUMBENTS INCLUDING DISTRICT 35 ABOUT REPRESENTATIVES KEVIN ANDRUS, RANDY ARMSTRONG, CHAD CHRISTENSEN AND MARC GIBBS.

SINCE THE FORMATION OF THE COMMISSION, RADIO DOE SOTO, WHO IS CHAIR OF THE NATIVE AMERICAN DEMOCRATS CAUCUS FOR THE IDAHO DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND NATIONAL BOARD TRUSTEE FOR THE LEAGUE OF MINORITY VOTERS, HAS VOICED CONCERNS OVER MINORITY REPRESENTATION ON OR LACK THEREOF ON THE COMMISSION AND IN COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE STATE, INCLUDING THE SHOSHONE BANNOCK RESERVATION IN EASTERN IDAHO.

ROD DE, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

WHAT ARE YOUR ORIGINAL CONCERNS WITH THE COMMISSION?

>> I ORIGINALLY CO-LED AN OP-ED TRIBUNE ON THE NEW FOR MINORITY REPRESENTATION ON THE COMMISSION SO THAT THE ROADS OF MINORITIES ARE NOT DILUTE THE.

AND IT ENDED UP BEING THAT THE WAY THESE DISTRICTS HAVE BEEN DRAWN, MANY OF THE MINORITY COMMUNITIES THAT I AM ASSOCIATED WITH, NATIVE AMERICANS, HISPANICS, FEEL LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO BE DISENFRANCHISED AS A RESULT OF THESE MAPS.

>> LET'S WALK THROUGH YOUR CONCERNS.

NOW THAT YOU HAVE SEEN THE MAPS, WHAT ARE YOUR PRIMARY ISSUES WITH WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED?

>> WELL, IN MY HOMETOWN OF NAMPA, WHICH IS 25% LAURENT, THERE ARE A LOT OF LOW-INCOME VOTERS, MAINLY IN THE CORONER PARTS OF THE CITY.

ORIGINALLY, THE SECOND MAP PROPOSED HAD THE CITY SPLIT UP INTO FOUR DISTRICTS, WHEN THERE'S ABOUT 100,000 FOLKS IN THE CITY.

AND THEN MERIDIAN, A COMP RACK CITY POPULATIONWISE, AND WAS ONLY PROPOSED TO BE TWO.

AND SO DUE TO CONCERNS, THEY END UP CHANGING IT AND THERE'S ONLY THREE.

BUT IT'S STILL SEGMENTED IN A WAY THAT'S GOING TO LESSEN THAT VOTING BLOCK OF MINORITIES AND LOW-INCOME VOTERS.

AND THEN AS RELATES TO MY TRIBE, AND I LEARNED LIKE MANY OTHERS THROUGH PUBLIC STATEMENT THAT IS THEY PUT OUT, THAT IT SPLITS RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE TRIBAL RESERVATION WHERE THE MAJORITY OF OUR TRIBAL POPULATION RESIDES.

AND SO THAT'S NOT HELPFUL TO US IN TERMS OF MAINTAINING A COMMUNITY, OUR COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST, PEOPLE THAT WANT TO HAVE A VOICE.

>> YOU CAN SEE MY FULL INTERVIEW WITH RADIO WE DO SOTO ONLINE AT YOUTUBE.COM/IDAHOREPORTS.

I SPOKE TO THE REDISTRICTING COMMISSION CO-CHAIRS, BART DAVIS, AND DAN SCHMIDT, ABOUT HOW THEY PRIORITIZED THE MANY COMPETING FACTORS AT PLAY.

THERE'S A QUESTION OF METH MAT CAL DEVIATION BUT THERE WERE ALSO COMMUNITIES THAT SAID PLEASE DON'T SPLIT OUR COMMUNITY.

AND THE COMMISSION FINALLY DID.

WHY DID YOU CHOOSE TO SPLIT FORT HALL?

>> WELL, AGAIN, IT'S PRIMARILY DEALING WITH EQUAL PROTECTION OF PRINCIPALS.

THE SHOSHONE, FORT HALL ITSELF IS DIVIDED UP INTO THREE COUNTIES.

HOWARD COUNTY, BANNOCK COUNTY, AND BINGHAM COUNTY.

AND MOST OF THE POPULATION IS IN BINGHAM COUNTY.

AND AS A MEMBER OF THAT SUBCOMMITTEE, WE WORKED HARD TO TRY TO FIND A WAY TO MOVE, IT'S A LITTLE MORE THAN 2,000 PEOPLE AT THE NORTH END OF BANNOCK COUNTY AND MOVE THEM UP INTO BINGHAM COUNTY.

BUT THE STATUTES ARE WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT IT MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR US TO PROVIDE THE KIND OF TREATMENT THAT I THINK WE WOULD LIKE.

BUT EVEN SETTING THE STATUTES ASIDE, IT'S, AS WE HAVE EXPLAINED ON THE ROAD AND IN OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE, IT'S LIKE A BALLOON.

IF YOU PUSH IN HERE, IT HAS AN ADVERSE IMPACT EVERYWHERE ELSE.

AND WHAT WE FOUND WAS THAT IF WE MOVED THE 2500 OR NOT 2500.

ABOUT 2,000, A LITTLE MORE IS MY MEMORY GOES.

UP INTO BINGHAM COUNTY, THEN IT HAD AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON US BEING ABLE TO KEEP OTHER AREAS WHOLE.

I AM EXTREMELY SYMPATHETIC TO THE CONCERNS THAT WERE EXPRESSED AND CAN ASSURE YOU AND YOUR VIEWERS THAT THAT WAS A PRIMARY FACTOR THAT WE WENT OVER TO TRY AND SEE IF WE COULD MAKE WORK AND KEEP OUR ATTENTION ON EQUAL PROTECTION PRINCIPLES.

>> CHAIRMAN SCHMIDT, I WANTED TO ASK YOU YOUR INPUT.

DID PUBLIC TESTIMONY SWAY THE COMMISSION AT ALL?

OR WAS THIS A PURELY MATHEMATICAL EXERCISE?

>> I WAS SO, TO GO AROUND THE STATE AND GET INPUT.

THERE WERE LOTS OF COMMUNITIES THAT WE DIDN'T, WE WEREN'T FAMILIAR WITH.

AND SO THEY COULD EXPRESS THEIR ASSOCIATIONS AND HOW THEY SAW THEIR RELATIONSHIPS.

AND THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL.

AND WE HEARD MULTIPLE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF THAT IN DIFFERENT PLACES.

THERE WERE ALSO SOME TESTIMONY THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH ARGUING FOR PARTISAN DECISIONS ON OUR PART.

AND WE HEARD IT, BUT WE'RE PROHIBITED FROM THAT.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK GIVING THE FOLKS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO US, FOR THEM TO KNOW THAT, HERE WE ARE, DRAWING MAPS, AND WE WANT THEIR INPUT WAS A VERY IMPORTANT AND VERY VALUABLE PROCESS.

>> WE HAVE MUCH MORE ONLINE.

FOR THE FULL INTERVIEW WITH CO-CHAIRS DAVIS AND SCHMIDT, VISIT YOUTUBE.COM/IDAHOREPORTS.

AND ON THIS WEEK'S "IDAHO REPORTS" PODCAST, ASSOCIATE PRODUCER LOGAN FINNEY AND CLARK CORBIN OF THE IDAHO CAPITAL SUN DISCUSS THE CONSEQUENCES OF REDISTRICTING IN IDAHO FOR INCUMBENT LAWMAKERS.

YOU CAN FIND THE LINK TO THE "IDAHO REPORTS" PODCAST AT.

ON MONDAY, LAWMAKERS RECONVENE IN BOISE TO CONSIDER A RESPONSE TO PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN'S FEDERAL VACCINE MANDATES WHICH AFFECT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND CONTRACTORS AS WELL AS PRIVATE EMPLOYERS WITH MORE THAN 100 EMPLOYEES.

ON FRIDAY MORNING, SENATE DEMOCRATS HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE ON THE ISSUE SAYING THE LEGISLATURE CAN'T COME UP BECAUSE THE SENATE IS OFFICIALLY ADJOURNED.

>> THE FACT IS THAT ANYONE WANTING TO CONVENE THE SENATE NEXT WEEK NEEDED TO GET INTO COURT, RAISE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES THAT ARISE FROM THE VERY UNIQUE THAT THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION ENDED, AND SEE IF THE COURT WOULD BE WILLING TO ISSUE AN ORDER NULLIFYING THE SENATE'S DECISION TO ADJOURN SINE DIE.

EVERYTHING THAT THE LEGISLATURE MIGHT DO NEXT WEEK IS GOING TO BE UNDER A LEGAL CLOUD.

>> BUT TO BE CALLED BACK FOR AN UNDETERMINED PERIOD OF TIME FOR AN UNDETERMINED NUMBER OF BILLS, LANGUAGE THAT WE DON'T EVEN HAVE OVER SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN JANUARY, OR IS ALREADY BEING ARBITRATED IN FEDERAL COURT, SEEMS A REALLY COLLOSAL WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY AND TIME WHEN WE COULD BE DOING MORE THOUGHTFUL POLICY INSTEAD OF DOING IT IN A FIRE DRILL.

>> JOINING ME TO DISCUSS THE LEGISLATURE'S RETURN IS HOUSE SPEAKER SCOTT BEDKE, HOUSE MINORITY LEADER ILANA RUBEL AND SENATOR WINDER, I WANTED TO START WITH YOU AND GET YOUR REACTION TO THE SENATE MINORITY LEADERSHIP'S CONCERNS.

>> I THINK THERE ARE THINGS THAT DO DESERVE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION.

I THINK WE NEED TO FUND THE ABILITY TO LEGALLY OPPOSE THE BIDEN EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND WE WANT TO DO THAT.

I THINK WE ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO A MEMORIAL TO CONGRESS, AGAIN, EXPRESSING OUR OPPOSITION TO THE MANDATES.

THERE ARE SOME THINGS WE DO NEED TO DO AND WE ARE LOOKING OBVIOUSLY ANOTHER PIECE OR TWO OF LEGISLATION THAT MIGHT COME UP ON THE SENATE SIDE.

BUT WE WON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.

I THINK AS FAR AS THE COLLOSAL WASTE OF MONEY, I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THAT COMMENT.

I THINK THE PEOPLE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S MANDATES AND VACCINATIONS AND THAT TYPE OF THING.

I THINK WE DO NEED TO SPEND SOME TIME ON THAT NOW.

A LOT OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT MAY COME UP COULD WAIT UNTIL JANUARY.

BUT I THINK THIS ONE IS IMPORTANT NOW.

>> I WANT TO ASK ABOUT THAT LEGAL FUND THAT YOU BROUGHT UP.

WHAT DO YOU ENVISION THIS BEING AND HOW MUCH MONEY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ESTABLISHING A FUND OF ABOUT $2 MILLION.

AND IT WOULD BE CONTROLLED BY THE LEGISLATURE THROUGH THE SPEAKER AND THE PRO TEM.

AND DISTINGUISH THAT FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSE FUND, WHICH IS ACTUALLY CONTROLLED BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND BY THE LEGISLATURE THROUGH THIS, AGAIN, THE SPEAKER AND THE PRO TEM.

AND I THINK THE LEGISLATURE IF WE SAW A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THIS WHEN WE TRIED TO JOIN IN THE CASE IN GEORGIA, AND GEORGIA SID, NO, WE DON'T WANT THE LEGISLATURE INVOLVED.

WE THINK WE OUGHT TO BE INVOLVED AND WE OUGHT TO HAVE A POSITION IN THESE CASES.

THAT'S WHAT THIS FUND WOULD DO.

IT WOULD ALLOW THE SPEAKER AND THE PRO TEM TO WORK ON THOSE TYPES OF ISSUES OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS.

>> SENATOR, YOUR CAUCUS PREVIOUSLY SAID THAT YOU THOUGHT, AS YOU SAID, MANY.

THESE ISSUES CAN WAIT UNTIL JANUARY.

MR. SPEAKER, YOU HAVE SAID THE SAME THING.

WHAT CHANGED?

>> WELL, WE WERE OBLIGATED AT THE END OF MAY TO COME BACK.

WE PASSED THE HOUSE RESOLUTION NUMBER 4 THAT SAID WE NEEDED TO COME BACK BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR TO CLOSE THE BOOKS.

AND OF COURSE, THEN THAT OBLIGATED US TO TAKE UP WHATEVER BUSINESS CAME UP IN THE MEANTIME.

SO BACK, AND I REVIEWED THE DEBATE, I MEAN, IF WE GO BACK TO MAY, WE ANTICIPATED ANOTHER BIG INSTALLMENT OF FEDERAL MONEY.

PROBABLY VIA THE INFRASTRUCTURE BILL.

MANY HOUSE MEMBERS WERE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH KICKING THAT MONEY TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH FOR, AND INTO THEIR NON COGNIZIBLE.

>> MONEY THIS COMES INTO THE STATE THAT HASN'T BEEN APPROPRIATED?

>> EXATLY.

IF THE LEGISLATURE IS NOT THERE, THEN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT BASICALLY APPROPRIATE THAT AND THAT IS CLEARLY THE LEGISLATURE'S RESPONSIBILITY IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

AND SO THAT WAS THE THOUGHT PROCESS BACK THEN.

AND THEN SINCE, THEN WE HAD THE BIDEN EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

AND IN THE HOUSE, OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ETHICS HAS A REPORT THAT IS PROPERLY, WILL PROPERLY BE FORWARDED TO THE HOUSE AS WELL.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE WILL TAKE UP COME MONDAY.

>> I AM LOOKING AT THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS AGENDA RIGHT NOW.

AND IT HAS 29 PIECES OF DRAFT LEGISLATION RANGING FROM LITIGATION FUNDS TO STATE SOVEREIGNTY, TO SOMETHING ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEFENDING AGAINST LEGISLATION AGAINST IMMUNE NATIONS.

HOW LONG IT THIS SESSION GOING TO TAKE?

DO YOU SEE THE HOUSE TAKING UP ALL THESE DRAFTS ?

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS JUST A LITTLE BIT HERE.

SO ALTHOUGH THESE ARE IDEAS, IF THEY'RE INTRODUCED IN WAYS AND MEANS, THEN THEY GET A BIG NUMBER AND THEY'RE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THOSE BILLS WILL ADVANCE.

AND SO THEY WILL BE READ ACROSS THE DESK AT THE EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS, READ FOR THE FIRST TIME AND THEN ASSIGNED TO A COMMITTEE.

AND WE WILL SEE HOW THAT GOES.

BUT THE FACT THAT THEY'RE INTRODUCED CERTAINLY DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY WILL ADVANCE.

AND I'VE BEEN VERY EMPHATIC WITH ANYONE THAT WOULD LISTEN THAT THE STANDARD BY WHICH WE SHOULD MEASURE THEIR ADVANCEMENT IS, CAN THIS WAIT UNTIL JANUARY?

IF IT CAN, THEN, NO.

IF IT CAN'T, THEN, MAYBE.

AND WE WILL GO AND PART THAT THROUGH THE, BILL THROUGH THE PROCESS.

>> AS FAR AS THE CONTENT OF THESE BILLS, HAVE YOU TOLD YOUR CHAIRMAN THAT THERE ARE PARAMETERS ON WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO HEAR?

>> WELL, THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WILL GUIDE US.

WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF THE TAXPAYER MONEY WE ARE SPENDING.

THIS NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN AN EFFICIENT, EXPEDITED WAY BUT NOT EXPEDITED TO THE POINT OF SHORT-CIRCUITING THE PROCESS IF A BILL DOES ADVANCE.

AND SO NUMBER ONE THE TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS.

NUMBER 2, CAN IT WAIT UNTIL JANUARY?

IF IT CAN, THEN IT NEEDS TO BE IN A HOLDING PATTERN.

WE'RE PRETTY CLOSE TO JANUARY NOW.

AND SO THE ONLY THINGS OF URGENCY, THINGS THAT WOULD ALLOW IDAHO TO DO ITS PRORATED SHARE IN, AS THESE FEDERAL LAWSUITS ADVANCE.

AND SO THOSE, SO, HAVE I TOLD THEM WHAT TO DO?

NO.

THE CHAIRMAN SET THEIR OWN AGENDAS AND DO THEIR OWN THING.

NOW, THAT'S NOT TO MEAN THAT WE DON'T DISCUSS.

BUT WE'LL SEE.

AND EACH ONE OF THEM, OF COURSE, UNDERSTANDS THE URGENCY HERE AND THE -- NOT WANTING TO LET THIS THING GO TOO FAR.

>> I WANT TO GET YOUR RESPONSE.

YOU HAVE HAD CONCERNS FROM THE BEGINNING, SINCE THE LEGISLATURE OR THE HOUSE, JUST RECESSED INSTEAD OF ADJOURNED SINE DIE.

WHAT ARE YOUR CONCERNS GOING INTO NEXT WEEK?

>> OH, MANY.

I OPPOSED THE WHOLE PROCEDURE UNDER WHICH WE LEFT.

I BROUGHT A MOTION TO SINE DIE WHICH UMP FAILED.

AND I VOTED AGAINST THE RESOLUTION SAYING WE HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE YEAR'S END.

NONE OF THIS NEXT WEEK WAS REALLY THE DEMOCRATS'S IDEA.

BUT I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T SEE WHY ANY OF THIS CAN'T WAIT UNTIL JANUARY.

BUT I HAVE PROCEDURAL CONCERNS THAT I THINK WE NEVER DO GOOD WORK UNDER THESE KIND OF CIRCUMSTANCES.

WHEN WE COME IN AND SAY, HERE'S 30 BILLS WE HAVE TO PASS IN THE NEXT 72 HOURS!

AND THERE WASN'T BE ANY TIME TO GET ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS AND THERE WON'T BE ANY TIME FOR PEOPLE TO READ THEM AND UNDERSTAND THEM AND THE PUBLIC TO PROCESS AND COME THIS IN AND TESTIFY AT HEARINGS.

WHEN EVERYTHING THEY DESCRIBE LEGISLATION AS SAUSAGE MAKING AND WHEN YOU ARE SAUSAGE MAKING AT 200 MILES AN HOUR WHERE PEOPLE CAN'T SEE WHAT'S GOING IN THE SAUSAGE, I DON'T THINK YOU GET VERY GOOD SAUSAGE.

I THINK WE WOULD DO BETTER FOR THE PUBLIC TO DO IT IN THE ORDINARY PROCESS THAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN WE COME BACK IN DUE COURSE IN JANUARY WITH WE HAVE A COUPLE DAYS BETWEEN A PRINT HEARING AND A REGULAR HEARING AND FEW MORE DAYS UNTIL IT HITS THE FLOOR.

AND THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND WORKERS AND EVERYBODY HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THIS STUFF.

AND COME IN AND HAVE THEIR VOICE HEARD AND WE DON'T END UP PASSING THINGS WE SHOULDN'T.

>> YOU SAY THAT A LOT OF THESE ISSUES ARE MOSTLY, OR ALL OF THEM CAN WAIT UNTIL JANUARY.

BUT ALREADY THERE HAVE BEEN EMPLOYEES, ESPECIALLY IN IDAHO'S LARGEST HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN FACED WITH DEADLINES TO GET VACCINATED.

AND A NUMBER OF THEM, NOT THE MAJORITY, BUT A NUMBER OF THEM HAVE OPPOSED THOSE MANDATES.

FOR THEM IT IS URGENT.

THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT LOSING THEIR LIVELIHOODS.

>> WITH RESPECT TO THE FEDERAL MANDATES, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE, IN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, THERE JUST IS NOT A LEGISLATIVE ROLE HERE.

EITHER THE BIDEN VACCINE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH AT LEAST WITH RESPECT TO OSHA, HAVE A TESTING ALTERNATIVE, SO THEY SHOULD NOT BE CALLED A MANDATE, BECAUSE THEY'RE VACCINATED OR GET TESTED WHICH IS A VERY DIFFERENT THING.

BUT FIRST OF ALL THEY DON'T GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL JANUARY.

BUT SECONDLY, THEY'RE BEING LIST GATED IN FEDERAL COURT.

EITHER OF THOSE ARE GOING TO BE UPHELD AS CONSTITUTIONAL IN WHICH CASE ANY STATE LEGISLATIVE ATTEMPT TO OPPOSE THEM IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE STRUCK DOWN IN COURT AS A VIOLATION OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE.

IN THAT CASE WHATEVER WE PASS WILL BE USELESS.

IF THEY ARE STRUCK DOWN IN COURT, AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THEY WON'T BE IN EFFECT ANYWAY AND THERE WON'T BE ANY NEED FOR ANY LEGISLATIVE ACTION.

SO ANY WAY YOU CUT IT, LIKELY WHATEVER WE DO GIVEN THE FACT IT'S BEING RESOLVED IN FEDERAL COURT, WHATEVER WE DO AS THE IDAHO STATE LEGISLATURE, IS EITHER GOING TO BE SUE PURCHASE WILL YOUS AND STRUCK DOWN IN COURT IN A COSTLY LAWSUIT.

SO GIVEN THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HEADED, I JUST DON'T SEE HOW IT MAKES SENSE TO COME IN WITH OUR HAIR ON FIRE, LEGISLATING IN THIS INCREDIBLY ACCELERATED FASHION.

>> SENATOR, I WANTED TO GET YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT.

KNOWING THERE ARE MULTIPLE COURT CHARGES AGAINST THESE MANDATES, WHY NOT WAIT?

>> I THINK THE -- WE HAVE TAKEN THE POSITION IN THE SENATE THAT THE REAL REMEDY IS THROUGH THE FEDERAL COURTS.

AND WE STILL THINK THAT.

BUT THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE THINK WE CAN DO TO FUND THE DEFENSE, TO BE AGGRESSIVE IN THAT, AS WE LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITIES.

WE FILED A MOTION YESTERDAY IN THE 6th DISTRICT ASKING TO INTERVENE IN THAT CASE, IN REGULARS TO OSHA.

AND SO SEE OW THAT COMES ABOUT.

THE STATES OF BELIEVE, TEXAS, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHO ELSE IN THE 5th DISTRICT RECEIVED AN INJUNCTION, AND SO THEY'VE ACTUALLY TAKEN THAT LEGAL STEP IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND SAID, HEY, WAIT A MINUTE U.

CAN'T ENFORCE THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

SO IT'S PLAYING OUT.

IT'S JUST NOT PLAYING OUT AS FASTS AS THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE IT TO.

AND SO I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT, CAN WE PASS SOME POLITICAL% STATEMENTS?

YEAH, WE CAN.

BUT THE REAL REMEDY IS GOING TO BE IN THE COURTS.

AND THAT'S, IT WILL PROBABLY GO ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT.

>> KNOWING THAT YO HAVE ALREADY SIGNED ON TO THESE LAWSUITS, IS IT WORTH SPENDING THE TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO COME BACK AND MAKE THESE POLITICAL STATEMENTS ?

>> WELL, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO MAKE MORE THAN A POLITICAL STATEMENT.

I THINK WE'RE GOING TO MAKE AN ACTUAL FUNDING FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO MOVE FORWARD IN THOSE ACTIONS AND BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, SUPPORT THE LEGAL FEES NECESSARY.

THE A.G. AND THE GOVERNOR HAVE THEIR OWN FUNDS THEY ARE MOVING FORWARD ON THAT SIDE.

WE'RE NOT IN A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSE FUND TYPE OF CASE AT THIS POINT.

SO THOSE FUNDS ARE NOT AVAILABLE.

SO WE DO NEED THE FUNDING.

I ALSO THINK THAT CONGRESS NEEDS TO MAKE A STATEMENT.

AND THAT'S WHY THE MEMORIAL WOULD BE SENT TO CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT TO ASK THEM TO INTERVENE.

BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT SHOULD BE MAKING THESE TYPES OF DECISIONS.

THESE ARE POLITICAL POLICY, LEGAL DECISIONS.

I DON'T THINK THEY'RE APPROPRIATE FOR ANY PRESIDENT TO USE JUST AN EXECUTIVE ORDER TO FORCE SOMEONE TO TAKE A VACCINE.

>> MR. SPEAKERRINGS I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE CHANCE TO RESPOND TO THE MINORITY PARTY'S CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLIC AND STAY HOLDERS WILL HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO REVIEW THESE PROPOSALS BEFORE THEY'RE VOTED ON.

WHAT'S THE TIME LINE LIKE?

AND IS THE PUBLIC GOING TO HAVE A CHANCE TO READ THESE BILLS?

>> THE ANSWER TO THAT IS YES.

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO READ THEM.

HOWEVER, I MEAN, I THINK THAT THE SENATOR MAKES A GOOD POINT.

THE THINGS WE HAVE TO DO WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, A DEDICATED LITIGATION FUND, A STATEMENT, I THINK, TO CONGRESS IS IN ORDER.

AND I BELIEVE ALSO A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION SAYING THAT IT IS THE 66th IDAHO LEGISLATURE'S DECISION TO PARTICIPATE.

YOU GOT TO BE GRANTED INTERVENER STATUS IN FRONT OF THESE COURTS AS THESE GO UP.

AND THAT'S GOING TO TAKE, YOU KNOW, SO THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE A JOINT STATEMENT.

I DON'T THINK OUR FRIENDS ON THE LEFT WILL ENDORSE THAT.

BUT SO BE IT.

AND THE OTHER -- THAT WAS THREE THINGS SO THE OTHER 26, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THEY WILL BE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.

AND WE WILL SEE HOW THE COMMITTEE PROCESS WORKS ON THEM.

I THINK THAT THERE WILL BE A.M. TIME -- AMPLE TIME, THE SENATE TAKING WHAT THEY WOULD TAKE UP AND WHAT THEY WOULDN'T TAKE UP AND THOSE ARE NOT COMPLICATED BILLS BY ANYONE'S STANDARD.

AND SO I THINK THAT THE PUBLIC WILL BE ABLE TO ENGAGE ON THAT.

THERE WILL BE, WE WILL SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

AND IF, BUT WE HAVE TO SUSPEND RULES TO DO ALL THIS.

AND IF THE WILLINGNESS IS NOT THERE TO SUSPEND, I MEAN, THAT'S A 2/3 THRESHOLD AND THAT WILL BRING THE SITUATION TO A STOP.

A MOTION TO SINE DIE IS ALWAYS IN ORDER.

AND WHENEVER THERE'S A SIMPLE MAJORITY THAT WANTS TO DO THAT AND IT IS A MOTION OF HIGH PRECEDENCE.

>> AT ANY POINT BASICALLY IF SOMEBODY SAYS, I MOVE THAT WE ADJOURN SINE DIE, THEN YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE VOTE RIGHT THEN?

>> PROCEDURALLY THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS.

I MEAN, WE'RE BOUND BY OUR HOUSE RULES AND OUR HOUSE PROCESSES.

AND SO WE'LL JUST HAVE TO SEE HOW IT GOES.

I AM OPTIMISTIC, HOWEVER.

THESE CASES ARE TAKING THE SAME TRACK THAT OBAMA, THE OBAMA CARE CASES TOOK.

YEARS AGO.

OR SEVERAL YEARS AGO.

AND THEY FOUND THEIR WAY TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN THE MANDATES THAT WERE IN THE OBAMACARE.

AND I BELIEVE THAT, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME SUPREME COURT.

WOO THAT WE ALREADY HAVE THESE DECISIONS IN.

WE DON'T.

BUT WE WILL PROCEED AS IF WE KNEW WHAT WE WERE DOING AND THAT INCLUDES DOING IDAHO'S FAIR SHARE IN THESE ABSOLUTES.

>> I WANT TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO RESPOND.

>> THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE MANDATES IN THE OBAMACARE.

THE INDIVIDUAL -- >> AND YOU WILL OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT THEY STRUCK DOWN, YES.

>> THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.

RESPONDING TO SOME OF THAT, AGAIN, THE URGENCY, I'M JUST NOT SEEING.

AND ACTUALLY, THE ALLOCATING MONEY TO LITIGATION FEES IS PARTICULARLY OF CONCERN.

BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY 18 STATES THAT HAVE TAKEN ON THIS MATTER TO THE FEDERAL COURTS.

IT WILL BE, INCLUDING IDAHO'S ATTORNEY GENERAL.

SO I GUESS I'M NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDING WHY WE NOW NEED SEPARATE COUNSEL HIRED BY THE IDAHO LEGISLATURE ON TOP OF THE LOOT THAT IS COLLECTIVELY BEING BROUGHT BY MANY, MANY OTHER STATES, MANY OTHER ATTORNEYS GENERAL, AND I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING AGAIN WHY WE HAVE TO RUSH IN SO WE CAN LAYER ON AN ADDITIONAL LEVEL OF LITIGANTS WHO ARE GOING TO BE SAYING THE SAME THING AS 18 OTHER PARTIES ARE ALREADY SAYING IN THE CASE.

AT CONSIDERABLE TAXPAYER EXPENSION.

THIS HAS BEEN A SORE POINT WITH ME FOR SOME TIME BECAUSE WE HAVE LOST MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THESE LEGAL FUNDS WHERE I THINK AT LEAST CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSE FUND HASN'T WON A CASE SINCE 1996.

WE ARE COMING OUCH LOSING ALMOST A HALF MILLION DOLLARS OFF THE BALLOT INITIATIVE CASE.

WHERE THESE LEGAL FUNDS WERE LOST AND NOT JUST LOST THROUGH -- WELL, YOU HAVE TO LAYER ON BILL MYERS' COST.

THAT WAS ANOTHER CLOSE TO $300,000.

WHEN YOU ADD IT YOU WILL AUTOPSY IT WAS A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY.

IT IS BEING AMPLY LITIGATED.

EVEN IF YOU SUPPORT OPPOSING THE MANDATES ANYBODY CAN SLEEP WELL AS NIGHT KNOWING THERE ARE ALREADY ARMIES OF PERFECTLY WELL PAID LAWYERS WHO ARE LITIGATING IT AND WE DO NOT NEED TO POUR IN ANOTHER COUPLE MILLION DOLLARS TO ADD THE 19th TEAM OF LAWYERS TO LITIGATE THAT.

>> WE KNOW THAT HOUSE MEMBERS HAVE A NUMBER OF PROPOSALS INCLUDING ONE OR TWO FROM THE MINORITY PARTY.

WHAT ARE THE PARAMETERS ON WHAT THE SENATE IS WILLING TO CONSIDER?

WE HAVE A MINUTE LEFT.

>> I THINK WE WANT TO DEAL WITH THE MANDATES, THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

WE THINK THE OTHER ISSUES THAT WE HEAR ABOUT, AGAIN, WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE BILLS.

WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING TO COME OUT.

BILL OR TWO.NG ABOUT AN ABORTION THAT MAY COME OUT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE, WHILE WE'RE ALL PROLIFE AND WE HAVE A VERY STRONG PROLIFE STANCE, IS THAT APPROPRIATE RIGHT NOW?

DID DO WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING AGAIN WHEN THAT'S ACTUALLY WORKING ITS WAY THROUGH THE CIRCUIT COURT AND TOWARDS THE SUPREME COURT?

AND THEY HAVE AGREED TO HEAR A COUPLE DIFFERENT CASES.

SO, YOU KNOW, WHERE DO WE GO?

DO WE NEED TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW?

THEY WILL USE THEM AS KIND OF POLITICAL HAMMERS, IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT THEM.

SO YOU ARE NOT TRULY THE ULTRACONSERVATIVE THAT WE ARE.

BUT I THINK IF WE CAN KEEP IT TO THE VACCINE, KEEP IT TO THE FUNDING AND THE LITIGATION, AND MAYBE THERE WILL BE A COUPLE OF REALLY GOOD IDEAS THAT COME OUT THAT WE MIGHT CONSIDER.

BUT RIGHT NOW WE WANT TO KEEP TO IT A MINIMUM.

>> ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE TO LEVER IT THERE.

THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

AND HOPEFULLY WE DON'T SEE YOU IN BOISE PAST THANKSGIVING.

AND THANK YOU FOR WATCHING.

WE WILL HAVE FULL COVERAGE ONLINE.

AND WE WILL SEE YOU HERE NEXT WEEK.

>> 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