Narrator: 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.

Melissa Davlin: The legislature gaveled out for the last time for the regular session, but uncertainty over a medicaid bill could bring lawmakers back to the state house for a special session soon.

I'm Melissa Davlin.

Idaho Reports, starts now.

Hello and welcome to Idaho Reports.

This week, Logan Finney sits down with Representatives Ned Burns and Brent Crane to discuss the library bill that became law.

Kevin Richert of Idaho Education News gives us a rundown of education highlights.

Finally, Senate President Pro Tem Chuck Winder discusses the end of session, including uncertainty over whether a medicaid cost containment bill will cause an unintended disruption of services to Idahoans with disabilities, and whether that could bring lawmakers back for a special session.

But first, let's get you caught up on the week.

The Idaho Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously upheld recent changes to the state's voter ID laws, ruling that last year's elimination of student ID cards for voting does not violate the Constitution.

BABE VOTE, and the League of Women Voters brought that lawsuit last year, arguing the law violated equal protection for students.

The court disagreed, finding that the Constitution allows for reasonable parameters around the right to vote.

Legislators adjourned Sine Die on Wednesday after Governor Brad Little signed the final bills the House and Senate had passed the week before.

Little also allowed the Idaho Transportation Department budget to take effect without his signature.

The budget includes language to halt the sale of its former headquarters on State Street, a source of contention this session.

We'll have much more on this later in the show with Senator Winder.

House Republicans were happy with how the session went, emphasizing tax cuts and strategic investments in infrastructure.

Jason Monks: I did a little bit of checking back then, since 2019, that's not a long time ago, tax reduction has been over $3.6 billion.

That's what we've done in the last five years.

If you want to look at that, and we continue that process at the same time that we're reducing taxes, we're also having record investment in education and record investment in transportation.

Davlin: But Democrats had concerns about some of the laws that went into effect, particularly those that affect LGBTQ Idahoans.

Ilana Rubel: 67th legislative cycle there have been 30 anti LGBTQ bills.

And these are not only costly to taxpayers to litigate, but they make it harder for businesses to recruit to this state.

And they make it nearly impossible for some families to continue to live here.

As a legislator who has devoted ten years of my life to bettering this state, it pains me to root for Idaho to get sued and to lose those lawsuits.

Davlin: Little also signed a bill that would allow parents or guardians to sue a library for $250, plus damages if that library fails to move what they believe is obscene content within 60 days of written request.

Little had vetoed a different library bill last year and had reservations about this one.

Telling Associate producer Logan Finney on Wednesday that he quote, Signed that stinkin library bill.

Unquote.

On Wednesday afternoon, Logan sat down with Representatives Brent Crane and Ned Burns to discuss some of what the legislators passed and what they strategically did not hear this session.

Logan Finney: Thank you both so much for joining us this week.

Congratulations on a adjurning Sine Die.

Representative Crane, starting with you, what were some of your high points from the session?

Brent Crane: Interestingly enough, from my perspective, House Bill 521, which was some tax relief to Idahoans as well as dealing with some of the backlog of personal and personal maintenance issues at school districts.

We were able to solve some of that with House Bill 521.

I know you might think this is funny for me to throw in here, but, liquor license reform for resort cities.

It's a 15 year old issue that we have been working on for a number of years, and we were finally able to get that passed and signed into law so that, resort cities can now get additional liquor licenses for those resort cities who see a decline in population.

So those were a couple of things.

We had another, probably the most interesting bill, that I saw this year had to do with deepfakes and AI and there was a lot of reiterations of that bill.

But we finally got that signed into law as well.

It's something that I think that your viewers will be interested as the legislative process continues to unfold and campaigns seeing how deepfakes affect the political process.

Finney: Yeah.

Deepfakes for anyone who's not familiar, those are video representations of people that look like a real person saying a real thing, but it's been altered or generated in some way.

Crane: Yep, absolutely.

Finney: Representative Burns, what about for you?

What were some of your highlights this year?

Ned Burns: You know, I was a big fan of sort of the original iteration of 521, which was like the sort of, the clean, just school facilities funding, understanding that there were some other things that need to happen politically to get it done.

I was still, pretty pleased with it.

It worked out, you know, my districts, are very well represented by it.

I was very pleased that we passed, the, appropriation for Idaho Launch.

Thrilled to be able to get that done, you know, to kind of, follow through on our promise to graduating seniors this year.

Hopefully we'll be able to continue that in years future.

and I think, my biggest session highlight is what didn't happen.

And that would have been, a voucher bill.

Finney: A voucher, that meaning, the state subsidizing private school.

Burns: Correct.

Finney: What about negatives?

Things that did make it across the line that you wish hadn't?

Burns: Well, I know we're going to talk about it soon, but, you know, I was hopeful that, you know, I was a big fan of the, Senate version of the library bill.

Sadly, that broke down on the Senate floor.

It was, I felt like a cleaner version of how to deal with, issues that some folks might find objectionable, in libraries.

Understanding that that didn't work, then we ended up with 710.

Not as big a fan of that.

Finney: Representative Crane, what about you?

Is there something that you wish had happened in this session that didn't make it across the line?

Crane: Yeah.

I kind of wish we would have, tied a bow on and put a bow on the issue of the University of Idaho purchasing the University of Phoenix.

Obviously, we got that through the house, and then it didn't have enough support in the Senate, even though when they tried to bring some additional legislation, they couldn't get support for that as well.

But I think providing some certainty around that issue.

That's a large bill for taxpayers to undertake if we're going to guarantee that loan on the purchase of the University of Phoenix.

So I kind of would have liked to have seen that resolved, but, that's probably about it.

Finney: Do you think that deal is likely to move forward without a formal thumbs up or thumbs down from the legislature?

Crane: I think it gave the University of Idaho cause for pause.

And definitely the state board, when they realized where the legislature is at and the concerns that the legislature has regarding that.

I think that they're going to move slowly.

I don't know if they'll continue to move forward or not, though.

Finney: All right.

Well, let's transition to that library bill, house bill 710.

Your committee, State Affairs, has been working on this issue for a long time.

And, can you talk to me about what it took to get that bill across the finish line?

Crane: Yeah.

First of all, it started in, I believe it was 2022 was the first bill that we saw on that.

And then we saw a bill in 2023.

And then three bills in 2024.

And a right on my counterpart in the Senate, Senator Guthrie and I, when we saw different, library bills coming forward, I thought it quite possibly we could hold the first bill that, Representative Crane, my brother, brought forward and maybe put Senator Schroeder and Representative Crane together and get some legislation.

That failed to make it out of the Senate, and so then we came back with, House Bill 710.

And I know Representative Burns and I disagree on the issue, but I was glad to see us actually get resolution and get that issue resolved.

Finney: Representative Burns, there have been some changes from the bill that was vetoed last year to the bill that was signed into law this year.

What do you make of those changes?

Do you think that'll be enough to deal with some of the concerns folks have expressed?

Burns: I mean, you know, there's still a, you know, a potential, civil right of action that someone has in the bill.

And I've been pretty consistent throughout the last, you know, the 67th, legislative session, both, first and second term about not supporting bills with private rights of action.

And I know that it's only $250.

That's the private right of action.

But there's still damages in there, which could potentially cause, you know, further harm to libraries.

Finney: Legal fees for the library.

Burns: Correct.

And also potentially a real risk of losing the ability to have insurance.

Finney: Representative Crane, do you think that libraries ought to be concerned that they are facing large legal risk, potentially big bills, whether it's through insurance or legal issues?

Do you think that library districts in Idaho should be concerned about that?

Crane: No, and it's kind of interesting.

A year ago, I was on your show talking about this very issue with with a librarian from Meridian, and I told him, I said, look, rest assured, this was after the bill had died last year.

I said, we're going to get something done.

And what we came forward with.

I don't think that libraries need to be concerned.

One of the big distinctions in the bill this year is instead of removing books, it's actually relocating books.

And I think that that got lost with the number of bills that were coming through.

It's simply a relocation policy.

If the if the book violates Idaho's obscenity statutes, then you relocate it to a section designated for adults.

Finney: And is that adults only?

Is that how the bill phrased it?

Crane: I believe that's, I believe that's the terminology that's used in the bill.

But so if they will just simply, if it hey, if there's question they move it to that section.

There's going to be no, there's going to be no lawsuit brought forward.

So I really don't I think it was a good compromise.

And I think that that's why we finally ended up getting a bill through the House, Senate and the governor to sign it.

Finney: One final library question for you.

I believe on the House floor, at one point, you had stood up and said, if something like this, the bill that finally passed, didn't make it through, we would go back to the original version, that 2022 bill, which would have opened librarians up to criminal liability.

Was that, an empty threat?

A very real threat to your colleagues?

What's your stance on, what's the next step if this had been vetoed?

Crane: Yeah, it was a very real threat.

At the start of the session and leading up to the session at the start of the session.

My leadership team was asking what we were planning to do with regards to the library issue.

And they said, you need to know, representative.

The Senate is already starting from the standpoint of maybe we ought to go back to House Bill 666, which would remove the exemption for librarians and and put them in a position that they could be fined or put in jail.

So that was not an empty threat.

That was a real threat, that if this bill didn't pass, that is what was going to come forward next.

Finney: Representative Burns, what do you make of that?

Burns: Well, I mean, you know, I take Representative Crane at his word that that's where some senators were.

That that was their sort of, bargaining point.

I think that you might have had a harder time getting that through committee, either through, the Senate.

I don't know that there would have potentially been 18 folks, to get there.

Regardless, I know that it's probably going to be, you know, 710, 666, 384, any of the library bills that we had to deal with.

It's going to create a tremendous burden on the libraries.

And I do think that that this is likely to result in some litigation, you know, even 710, although, you know, it's probably not as far as some representatives wanted or senators wanted.

It's further than a lot of my caucus wanted.

I would imagine that we're going to see some litigation out of it.

Finney: One other issue that has been discussed at length of session, but not legislated on, is the topic of abortion as well as in vitro fertilization.

Representative Crane, you're the chairman of state affairs committee, where those sort of bills go through.

What was your reasoning for not taking up any abortion bills this year?

Crane: We decided very early on that since the state of Idaho has a lawsuit before the U.S. Supreme Court that we were not going to do anything with trying to make changes to Idaho's abortion statutes.

We were going to let the U.S. Supreme Court make their decision, and then we would move from that position.

With regards to in-vitro fertilization, I never saw a draft, and an RS never came to me and was shopped with me as to what we need to do.

And so we will continue to stay engaged on that.

On that front, I think in vitro fertilization is an important thing that families need to know, and those that are practicing in that field that in vitro fertilization should not be at risk.

And they don't need to be concerned about having the ability to use in vitro fertilization to have a family.

Finney: Representative Burns, when it comes to reassurances from Republicans that IVF is not a risk.

Does that put your mind at ease?

Burns: Not really.

Finney: Why not?

Burns: Not really.

No.

You know, because, you know, as we've seen in other states, you know, this is, this is, in my mind, sort of a chip away, chip away, chip away, chip away.

And, you know, there's unintended consequences to, you know, to doing a bill this year.

That kind of sets up the stage for something more drastic in following legislative sessions.

And as much as I take my good friend Representative Crane at his word right now, you know, I'm concerned about what future legislative bodies may do.

And so until we codify IVF protections into code, I don't, I don't have that assurance that this issue is laid to rest.

Finney: Looking forward to the future, taking that, the Supreme Court off the table, what do the current negotiations on a possible future abortion bill look like?

Crane: It ranges.

It's a broad spectrum, candidly, of, you know, you've got some individuals that want to obviously totally repeal Idaho's abortion statutes.

And in talking with doctors, pro-choice doctors, I've let them know elective abortion is not going to happen in the state of Idaho.

So that, you're going to have to set that aside.

And, for those that are on the pro-life side of the issue, they're having to wrestle in a post-Roe world.

Are there, you know, instances or examples that they're okay with allowing those families to make the decision, rape, incest, life of the mother?

There's other issues that people are talking about.

So I'm confident that we're going to have an interesting conversation.

With regards to for my colleague on in vitro fertilization.

I didn't talk to a single person in the legislature this year that's against in vitro fertilization.

Where the sticking point is going to be on that issue, and the legislature is not, in my opinion, they're not prepared to deal with that is what do you do with the frozen embryos?

That's kind of where as I begin to talk to different members and I said, you felt like in-vitro fertilization was okay.

Oh, yeah.

Absolutely.

It was the what do we do with the frozen embryos, those that aren't used.

And so I think that as you watch this issue, that is probably more where the policy conversation is going to.

That's where the negotiation, the policy, crafting that is going to be it can get caught up, I think.

Finney: Okay.

Well, we will certainly have an eye on that issue as it goes forward.

Representative Brent Crane, Representative Ned Burns, thank you so much for sitting down with us.

Burns: Thank you.

Appreciate the time.

Crane: Yep.

Davlin: As always, it was a big session for education.

Here to give us the highlights is Kevin Richert of Idaho Education News.

Kevin what are the big education bills that passed?

Kevin Richert: Well I think the biggest bill of them all was 521 House Bill 521, which is the school facilities plus law that went into effect.

And I think the big question that we have right now is, how is that $1.5 billion of money that's going to go into school facilities?

How is that going to unfold?

How is it going to affect schools around the state?

How is that money going to address some of the school building needs that we know have been just piling up over the years?

Davlin: It's $1.5 billion over the next ten years.

And you said it was the school facilities plus bill.

There were a lot of other policy topics, contained in that bill.

So that's not the only thing we're going to be watching as far as how this is going to be implemented.

Richert: Right.

I mean, you know, we have the the annual round of income tax reduction that was part of House Bill 521.

We also have the elimination of a school election date, the August school election date.

And you have a lot more in this in this law, when you also factor in the follow up language that came in the trailer bill that passed at the end of the legislative session, how is that going to affect, the movement toward four day schools around the state?

I think what lawmakers heard a lot over the course of the session was, this outpouring of support for four day schools and for local control on the four day schools issue.

You heard a lot of administrators and a lot of educators around the state, especially rural Idaho, saying, we like these four day calendars.

And, you know, it's worth noting this has been a rural issue for years, but you have Nampa considering if they're going to vote next week on whether to go to a four day calendar.

Coeur d'Alene has been looking at it.

So now you're starting to see larger school districts around the state looking at the four day calendar.

Davlin: And I believe Nampa would be the largest school district in the state that would, Richert: Yes, that’s correct.

Davlin: If they approve it.

Richert: If they go through with it next week, they would be the largest district to make that move.

Davlin: Other major education issues include Launch.

After some tension and some uncertainty over whether it would get to the finish line.

Richert: A lot of debate about funding Launch.

What this means now is the funding is in place, so we should have about 9,000 grants, upwards of 9,000 grants going to high school seniors starting in July.

It'll be really this will be the implementation phase.

It will be a chance for us to watch and for, policymakers to watch and see how is this money being spent and how are students, using the money?

Where are they going?

I think what you heard this session was, there's still some apprehension about Launch.

There is still some concerns about it.

This is going to be one of these programs that I think legislators are probably going to keep tweaking at.

Davlin: And as a reminder, Launch is grants us up to $8,000 for graduating seniors for in-demand career training.

Richert: Right.

And what it allows them to do is they can go to job training, they can go to community college, they can go to a four year school.

I think a lot of what we'll be watching for is where exactly do these students go?

Do they go into job training?

Do they go to community college?

Do they go to the four year schools, and what sort of impact does that have on these schools and these job training programs?

Davlin: We've already discussed the library bill that went into effect, that of course, does include public schools.

Richert: The stinking library bill.

I think we have to clarify and give credit to, your own Logan Finney, to get that quote of the session.

But yes, the library law is now in effect and the big question now is how is that going to affect public libraries, school libraries?

What sort of impact are we going to see?

I mean, we've had a three year debate about how this might affect libraries, how it might affect school libraries, what sort of chilling effect it might have, but we'll see pretty soon.

What sort of on the ground effect this has.

Davlin: Maybe not just a chilling effect on collections and what librarians are willing to put on the shelves, but also potentially, recruitment and current employment for librarians and maybe some discussions about how easy it's going to be to get insurance in the future if they're if they have this liability.

Richert: Yeah, I think there are a lot of those kind of, you know, practical impacts that this may have on library operations.

So, you know, it feels like after we've been debating this so much over the past three years, now we see one way or the other, we'll see what sort of impact this is going to have.

Davlin: What didn't make it to the finish line?

Richert: Well, school choice, for lack of a better term.

And it's not in our, an exact term.

We had the $50 million proposal that would have siphoned public dollars into private school tax credits.

That did not get out of the House Revenue Taxation Committee.

Yeah, similar legislation didn't get out of the House Education Committee, in 2023.

So there has been considerable opposition in these committees to, these kind of, proposals.

After the session, House speaker Mike Moyle, had his annual press conference, that Republican leadership had their press conference.

I asked the speaker, what is the biggest thing that didn't get done this year, because the speaker got most everything he wanted.

What did he not get this session that he thinks is a high priority?

Yeah.

He didn't, skip a beat.

He said school choice really has to be addressed.

And said, I guarantee I assure something will happen in 2025.

This debate is a long way from being done.

Davlin: Also, University of Phoenix, any sort of official oversight from the legislature?

Richert: Well, I think the legislature spoke pretty loudly that they did not, feel comfortable about this purchase.

They didn't feel like they had, that they knew enough, and they still had a lot of unanswered questions months after the announcement.

This leaves the purchase very much in limbo.

Davlin: All right.

We'll keep following that.

Kevin Richert of Idaho Education News, thanks for joining us.

Richert: Thanks, Melissa.

Davlin: On Monday, Governor Little signed a bill meant to increase legislative oversight and contain costs for Medicaid, but expressed major reservations about the bill's unintended consequences.

In his transmittal letter, Little said vague language in the bill would, quote, immediately result in harmful disruption to the delivery of service to thousands of Idahoans, unquote.

Those disruptions include approval to pay up to $40 million to skilled nursing facilities, $70 million in rate adjustment distributions for providers and care facilities, and pending approval of $4 million for personal care services management.

This could affect nearly 2,000 facilities providers and organizations around the state.

On Wednesday before adjournment, legislative leaders met to discuss potential follow up bills to address those concerns, but ultimately adjourned without introducing anything.

In a Thursday statement, the governor's spokesperson did not rule out a special session.

Joining me to discuss this and other end of session issues is Senate President Pro Tem Chuck Winder.

Senator Winder, why didn't the legislature pass a trailer bill to address those Medicaid concerns?

Chuck Winder: I think there were several reasons.

One, they couldn't actually come to agreement.

They worked on it for a couple of days, it was came up late in the session.

So they couldn't come to the agreement on what the language was.

People wanted to get out of there and go home.

The other side of it was we also felt that the governor and health and welfare had the current authority to, spend those, funds and to use the money to make those, provider payments.

So that was really the primary reason we think they still can.

They're going to talk to the attorney general and make sure they're on the same, you know, same track.

And hopefully we don't need a special session.

Davlin: As of when we are having this conversation on Friday morning.

Have you heard anything from the attorney general as far as guidance on this goes?

Wnder: No, that that conversation going on between the governor's office and the AG.

Davlin: And you just said, hopefully we don't have a special session, but will you be surprised if the governor does call you back, Winder: On this particular issue?

Yes.

But he did get wound up about this one at the end.

And I think, you know, it came very late in the session.

The bill had been, one of the first bills out of the House.

So it had been around literally for weeks, and nobody said anything until the last couple of days.

And then basically, it was too late to get people to agree on what the language had to be.

Davlin: You mentioned that the governor was wound up about this.

There were also some other highly charged debates this session, including one over the sale of the Idaho Transportation Department's former campus on State Street.

This was one that you felt strongly about.

Winder: Yeah, I felt really strongly about it.

I think, you know, I was chairman of the board of ITD for, 11 years and, really felt like, JFAC and the legislature two years prior on, House Bill 779 had said to ITD, you will move to the Shannon campus, and they appropriated $37 million to do that.

So the process was going, had been on going for two years.

They declared the property surplus, put it up for sale, got an appraised value of $38 million.

Got $52 million for the property as is, and, just felt like the legislature was interfering in something they didn't need to interfere in.

And so I pushed back on it as hard as I could push back.

And we were able to kill the budget a couple of times because of the intent language, but totally reverse the two year program that had been underway.

And I just felt that was going too far, for the legislature to do.

Davlin: And just to catch up people who may not be familiar with this, this was intent language attached to a budget bill that would have prevented the sale of that of that campus.

Winder: And reappropriate another $32 million just to go back into that building and remodel it so they could move back into it, because it had had flood damage.

And it was, it's really a functionally obsolete building.

So they think they're going to get more value out of the property in the future.

But if they put that much money into the building, it basically destroys the value for the property, because they're never going to move.

That's what's going to happen if they put that money back into it.

Davlin: Did you have any conversations with your colleagues who changed their votes between when you killed the original couple of budgets to the final budget that did ultimately pass with that exact same language in there?

Why did they change?

Winder: Well, it flip floped from, I think 19-16 to 18-17.

And I think people just were tired, you know, they were frustrated.

They wanted to go home and, JFAC didn't seem to want to change, you know, what they were doing.

And the house side of the JFAC committee had locked down.

And even though some of our members tried to get the language out, they just didn't have the support in the committee to do it.

So I think people just kind of gave up on it and said, well, we'll come back next session and see what's happened because this isn't going to change it overnight.

They're still going to have to go back and spend more money on redesign to go into the new building.

There's probably going to be a lawsuit on, from the developers.

So it's not an end to the saga.

I think it'll continue on.

Davlin: Are you surprised that the governor didn't issue either a line item veto or a total veto on this?

If he mentioned those concerns?

Winder: I thought he would really do a line item, in support of the board and the department administration, kind of the two year process that had been underway.

So that was a little bit disappointing, but, there was also a lot of transportation money in it that he wanted.

And so I think the end result was, this issue with ITD and relocation will still be an ongoing issue.

But the money that goes out now to ITD and to locals, is available.

Davlin: You said in one of your debates, that this was the hill that you were willing to die on, and you're still standing, but.

Winder: Yeah, but I'm bleeding, you know, I had some holes shot in me, through this process.

I just felt like it was really unfair of the legislature to intervene, at, you know, after a two year stage.

And they said, well it, you know, it wasn't a good deal.

Well, again, I point out the appraised value was $38 million.

They got $52 million.

Davlin: We have about 30 seconds left.

But are there parallels to this in the legislature wanting oversight over the University of Phoenix purchase?

Winder: Well, I think so, to some extent.

I think, you know, one of the good things that came out of that was we found out the the model that they wanted to use of, basically a not for profit 501c3 was not the way to do it.

So we went to the body politic and similar to Idaho housing finance, and provided that mechanism.

But then, that too failed.

Davlin: All right.

We're gonna have to leave it there.

Senator Chuck Winder, thank you so much for joining us.

And thank you for watching.

We have so much more coverage on the last couple weeks of the legislature.

If you missed it, you can find all of that at IdahoReports.org Thank you so much for watching, and we'll see you right back here next week.

Narrator: 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.